The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: feynman on December 22, 2014, 11:03:30 PM
-
The FET view is clearly based on a conspiracy. But how many people really know the truth ? I can't imagine that the thousands of people that work on satellite don't know that the things they are building doesn't exist...
-
FET is not based around a conspiracy. It is based around the zetetic method, which bases its conclusions on experimentation and observation.
The Earth is obviously flat. I can see that with my own two eyes. That's where Flat Earth Theory starts
Also, what makes you so skeptical of a conspiracy? You are aware of Watergate, right? What about the Manhattan Project? Both examples of the government keeping the truth from the public, quite successfully in the case of latter.
-
FET is not based around a conspiracy. It is based around the zetetic method, which bases its conclusions on experimentation and observation.
The Earth is obviously flat. I can see that with my own two eyes. That's where Flat Earth Theory starts
Also, what makes you so skeptical of a conspiracy? You are aware of Watergate, right? What about the Manhattan Project? Both examples of the government keeping the truth from the public, quite successfully in the case of latter.
FET requires a NASA conspiracy. Otherwise you have to take them at their word which means the Earth has been directly observed as spherical. Claiming otherwise would seriously undermine your position.
-
OK about watergate but... this not really the same scale !! I mean that if the Earth were really flat, many many people know about it right ?
And when i said "is based on the conspiracy", it was about the fact that one of your key argument is that there is a conspiracy (cf FAQ)
-
The FET view is clearly based on a conspiracy. But how many people really know the truth ? I can't imagine that the thousands of people that work on satellite don't know that the things they are building doesn't exist...
Every world government with a space program would need to be lying, lets say a million people all together that would be involved or have to handle the evidence that needs to be hidden.
Every airline would need to be in on it, along with every airline manufacturer and every airport authority/operator, due to the fact airplanes would need to either fly faster, due circles or other odd things to maintain the "lie" of the round earth, call it another million people.
Every scientist would need to be lying, there are roughly 8 million of them.
Every satellite company for TV, GPS and internet would be lying, call it another million people.
Every cell phone company would be lying, call it a million for all the world, but also every agency that has to inspect and regulate them and their activities would have to be lying, so another million.
Every shipping company would be lying, due again to distance between objects being one thing on a round earth and another on a flat earth, so they must be lying about their travel time, and all relative people that handle that information, the people working the boats, and ports and all that good stuff, plus of course the fact they use GPS to navigate. Call it another million for arguments sake.
We can keep going, but at 14 million people already we can see that keeping "the secret" becomes pretty damned unlikely, especially over the couple hundred years that a round earth model has been accepted as standard. /shrug
-
The FET view is clearly based on a conspiracy. But how many people really know the truth ? I can't imagine that the thousands of people that work on satellite don't know that the things they are building doesn't exist...
Every world government with a space program would need to be lying, lets say a million people all together that would be involved or have to handle the evidence that needs to be hidden.
Every airline would need to be in on it, along with every airline manufacturer and every airport authority/operator, due to the fact airplanes would need to either fly faster, due circles or other odd things to maintain the "lie" of the round earth, call it another million people.
Every scientist would need to be lying, there are roughly 8 million of them.
Every satellite company for TV, GPS and internet would be lying, call it another million people.
Every cell phone company would be lying, call it a million for all the world, but also every agency that has to inspect and regulate them and their activities would have to be lying, so another million.
Every shipping company would be lying, due again to distance between objects being one thing on a round earth and another on a flat earth, so they must be lying about their travel time, and all relative people that handle that information, the people working the boats, and ports and all that good stuff, plus of course the fact they use GPS to navigate. Call it another million for arguments sake.
We can keep going, but at 14 million people already we can see that keeping "the secret" becomes pretty damned unlikely, especially over the couple hundred years that a round earth model has been accepted as standard. /shrug
This is completely inaccurate. Please don't poison the well with your ill-founded assumptions.
-
The assumptions are not ill-founded just not terribly conservative. Assuming 100% of people know anything is never a good idea. He also was not poisoning the well really since he did not say anything particularly derogatory about FET.
-
Every scientist? Not every scientist studies space or anything related to the shape of the Earth.
Cell phone companies? They use sonar-based transmitters, weather balloons, stratellites, and cell-towers. No lying required here.
Satellite companies? Also not lying. They use stratellites and terrestrial transmitters.
Shipping companies? If Lemmiwinks knew anything about circumnavigation or FET in general he'd know that they wouldn't need to lie about anything. It's not like geography magically changes depending on what worldview you subscribe to.
Airlines? They use on-board equipment for flight that is mostly an automated process. No lying required.
The governments of the world? Probably lying, yes. But what are they not lying about? Are you familiar with Snowden? I find it hard to believe that RE'ers can take themselves so seriously about denying the conspiracy when damning evidence has come out recently that shows that the government (at least, the United States government) is lying and spying on it's own people everyday. The denial is hilarious and really does not help your case. Just makes you look silly at this point.
-
Every scientist? Not every scientist studies space or anything related to the shape of the Earth.
Cell phone companies? They use sonar-based transmitters, weather balloons, stratellites, and cell-towers. No lying required here.
Satellite companies? Also not lying. They use stratellites and terrestrial transmitters.
Shipping companies? If Lemmiwinks knew anything about circumnavigation or FET in general he'd know that they wouldn't need to lie about anything. It's not like geography magically changes depending on what worldview you subscribe to.
Airlines? They use on-board equipment for flight that is mostly an automated process. No lying required.
The governments of the world? Probably lying, yes. But what are they not lying about? Are you familiar with Snowden? I find it hard to believe that RE'ers can take themselves so seriously about denying the conspiracy when damning evidence has come out recently that shows that the government (at least, the United States government) is lying and spying on it's own people everyday. The denial is hilarious and really does not help your case. Just makes you look silly at this point.
What is silly is the number of factoids you just straight-up concocted in this post.
-
Every scientist? Not every scientist studies space or anything related to the shape of the Earth.
Cell phone companies? They use sonar-based transmitters, weather balloons, stratellites, and cell-towers. No lying required here.
Satellite companies? Also not lying. They use stratellites and terrestrial transmitters.
Shipping companies? If Lemmiwinks knew anything about circumnavigation or FET in general he'd know that they wouldn't need to lie about anything. It's not like geography magically changes depending on what worldview you subscribe to.
Airlines? They use on-board equipment for flight that is mostly an automated process. No lying required.
The governments of the world? Probably lying, yes. But what are they not lying about? Are you familiar with Snowden? I find it hard to believe that RE'ers can take themselves so seriously about denying the conspiracy when damning evidence has come out recently that shows that the government (at least, the United States government) is lying and spying on it's own people everyday. The denial is hilarious and really does not help your case. Just makes you look silly at this point.
What is silly is the number of factoids you just straight-up concocted in this post.
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
-
Every scientist? Not every scientist studies space or anything related to the shape of the Earth.
Cell phone companies? They use sonar-based transmitters, weather balloons, stratellites, and cell-towers. No lying required here.
Satellite companies? Also not lying. They use stratellites and terrestrial transmitters.
Shipping companies? If Lemmiwinks knew anything about circumnavigation or FET in general he'd know that they wouldn't need to lie about anything. It's not like geography magically changes depending on what worldview you subscribe to.
Airlines? They use on-board equipment for flight that is mostly an automated process. No lying required.
The governments of the world? Probably lying, yes. But what are they not lying about? Are you familiar with Snowden? I find it hard to believe that RE'ers can take themselves so seriously about denying the conspiracy when damning evidence has come out recently that shows that the government (at least, the United States government) is lying and spying on it's own people everyday. The denial is hilarious and really does not help your case. Just makes you look silly at this point.
What is silly is the number of factoids you just straight-up concocted in this post.
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
I tend not to bother with silly claims equating sonar with radio.
-
I tend not to bother with silly claims equating sonar with radio.
It's true, though. Ever noticed that cell phones used to have huge antennas? Now they don't need them because the microphone acts as the antenna.
-
I tend not to bother with silly claims equating sonar with radio.
It's true, though. Ever noticed that cell phones used to have huge antennas? Now they don't need them because the microphone acts as the antenna.
That would be a great story if it were true.
-
That would be a great story if it were true.
Clearly we can't count you among the enlightened few.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great RE scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
-
Every scientist? Not every scientist studies space or anything related to the shape of the Earth.
Cell phone companies? They use sonar-based transmitters, weather balloons, stratellites, and cell-towers. No lying required here.
Satellite companies? Also not lying. They use stratellites and terrestrial transmitters.
Shipping companies? If Lemmiwinks knew anything about circumnavigation or FET in general he'd know that they wouldn't need to lie about anything. It's not like geography magically changes depending on what worldview you subscribe to.
Airlines? They use on-board equipment for flight that is mostly an automated process. No lying required.
The governments of the world? Probably lying, yes. But what are they not lying about? Are you familiar with Snowden? I find it hard to believe that RE'ers can take themselves so seriously about denying the conspiracy when damning evidence has come out recently that shows that the government (at least, the United States government) is lying and spying on it's own people everyday. The denial is hilarious and really does not help your case. Just makes you look silly at this point.
Everything you just said makes you look far sillier than I looked with general round numbers to prove a point.
So now even though according to you we can't go to space... there are satellites? What are those? How do they work? How do they stay in orbit and how did we put them there?
I am sorry, I missed the fact its stratillite. Nothing silly about that :P, I digress on this point to save breath.
Also please, do explain how circumnavigation works on a flat planet in a way that the people doing the navigation have no clue they are on a flat planet instead of a round one.
Also I see you still haven't responded to the post you said you would from earlier.
Typical fe'r avoidance maneuver.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great RE scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
My new favorite thing.
quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
Not our place to prove jack squat, the onus is on you.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.
If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
So now you are doing exactly what you criticized. Good show.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.
If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.
Why? This isn't about them. You're committing the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. Regardless, most scientists are not doing studies on the shape of the Earth. Round Earth is an Ancient Greek teaching that most scientists don't feel the need to refute, because it makes sense when plugging in the RE numbers and formulas.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.
If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.
Why? This isn't about them. You're committing the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. Regardless, most scientists are not doing studies on the shape of the Earth. Round Earth is an Ancient Greek teaching that most scientists don't feel the need to refute, because it makes sense when plugging in the RE numbers and formulas.
It isn't? Then why would it matter to you if only one out of the 8 million think the world is round or if all 8 million think its round?
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
But you can use your own numbers, its literally the tool for you to prove to yourself if the world is flat or round. Find two wells, wait till the most sun is at the bottom that it will have. Measure the angle of the sun from a set distance from the well. Move a few hundred miles, few thousand, doesnt matter really, do the same. The difference in angle will allow you to measure the curvature of earth.
Boom, self experimentation.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
But you can use your own numbers, its literally the tool for you to prove to yourself if the world is flat or round. Find two wells, wait till the most sun is at the bottom that it will have. Measure the angle of the sun from a set distance from the well. Move a few hundred miles, few thousand, doesnt matter really, do the same. The difference in angle will allow you to measure the curvature of earth.
Boom, self experimentation.
This works with our model as well. I don't see your point here.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
But you can use your own numbers, its literally the tool for you to prove to yourself if the world is flat or round. Find two wells, wait till the most sun is at the bottom that it will have. Measure the angle of the sun from a set distance from the well. Move a few hundred miles, few thousand, doesnt matter really, do the same. The difference in angle will allow you to measure the curvature of earth.
Boom, self experimentation.
This works with our model as well. I don't see your point here.
That if it shows the planet has a circumference... then its round and not flat...
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
But you can use your own numbers, its literally the tool for you to prove to yourself if the world is flat or round. Find two wells, wait till the most sun is at the bottom that it will have. Measure the angle of the sun from a set distance from the well. Move a few hundred miles, few thousand, doesnt matter really, do the same. The difference in angle will allow you to measure the curvature of earth.
Boom, self experimentation.
This works with our model as well. I don't see your point here.
That if it shows the planet has a circumference... then its round and not flat...
No. What I mean was: trig works with FE as well. That's how we came to the conclusion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
Please see the formulas in this link. All trig. All proving our Sun is fact and yours is a fraud. It's all about the values, Lemmi. Math can be used to prove whatever you want provided you're using the right data. Your point about trigonometry is moot. If you assume a Round Earth and formulate around that, then you're going to get the results you want.
Also, the Bedford Level Experiment proves there is no circumference to the Earth.
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
Vauxhall, i'm just astonished by your lack of global vision.... How can you possibly said that the values of trig are wrong ? and by the way,what do you mean by values of trig ?? I red many of your recent comments on the forum and i made a conclusion : i think you only trust things that you have saw or proved by yourself : ok that's the zetetic things. But you seem to forget that we are 7 billions on this Earth (round or flat ahah ?) and that it is possible that some people discover things... OK you'll say that everybody is wrong, that's NASA is the devil blabla but paradoxically, the FET is innovative and is greatest defender (you) is closed-minded...
-
And are you saying now that trigonometry is false? Do I need to add everyone on the planet that has taken trigonometry to the list of people that are keeping their mouths shut on the flat earth conspiracy?
You cannot lump ignorance into the conspiracy.
Basic trig when used proves all sorts of neat things, distance to the moon, sun and stars and the circumference of the earth.
Is it that trig is the lie? Or people are lying? There isn't any ignorance here.
Trig is not a lie, but the numbers used are falsified. You have to have the basic values before you can calculate your examples. The values are wrong. Trig is fine.
But you can use your own numbers, its literally the tool for you to prove to yourself if the world is flat or round. Find two wells, wait till the most sun is at the bottom that it will have. Measure the angle of the sun from a set distance from the well. Move a few hundred miles, few thousand, doesnt matter really, do the same. The difference in angle will allow you to measure the curvature of earth.
Boom, self experimentation.
This works with our model as well. I don't see your point here.
That if it shows the planet has a circumference... then its round and not flat...
No. What I mean was: trig works with FE as well. That's how we came to the conclusion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
Please see the formulas in this link. All trig. All proving our Sun is fact and yours is a fraud. It's all about the values, Lemmi. Math can be used to prove whatever you want provided you're using the right data. Your point about trigonometry is moot. If you assume a Round Earth and formulate around that, then you're going to get the results you want.
No, because you first use trig to prove the earth is not flat but round. Then plugging in your flat earth numbers to test the distance to the sun becomes intellectually dishonest.
-
No, because you first use trig to prove the earth is not flat but round. Then plugging in your flat earth numbers to test the distance to the sun becomes intellectually dishonest.
Incorrect. Plugging in Round Earth numbers is intellectually dishonest.
We could keep going all day, but I hope this drove the point home for you. Trig does not prove your case. Move on to a different argument.
Vauxhall, i'm just astonished by your lack of global vision.... How can you possibly said that the values of trig are wrong ? and by the way,what do you mean by values of trig ?? I red many of your recent comments on the forum and i made a conclusion : i think you only trust things that you have saw or proved by yourself : ok that's the zetetic things. But you seem to forget that we are 7 billions on this Earth (round or flat ahah ?) and that it is possible that some people discover things... OK you'll say that everybody is wrong, that's NASA is the devil blabla but paradoxically, the FET is innovative and is greatest defender (you) is closed-minded...
I'm astonished by your lack of flat vision.
All I meant about the values is that the Round Earth values are self-proving and therefore irrelevant.
-
No, because you first use trig to prove the earth is not flat but round. Then plugging in your flat earth numbers to test the distance to the sun becomes intellectually dishonest.
Incorrect. Plugging in Round Earth numbers is intellectually dishonest.
We could keep going all day, but I hope this drove the point home for you. Trig does not prove your case. Move on to a different argument.
No, using angles you can prove the earth is round.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg/280px-Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg.png)
Once you prove that to yourself, then it is intellectually dishonest to pull flat earth numbers from your ass and use them to measure the distance to the sun.
-
No, because you first use trig to prove the earth is not flat but round. Then plugging in your flat earth numbers to test the distance to the sun becomes intellectually dishonest.
Incorrect. Plugging in Round Earth numbers is intellectually dishonest.
We could keep going all day, but I hope this drove the point home for you. Trig does not prove your case. Move on to a different argument.
No, using angles you can prove the earth is round.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg/280px-Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg.png)
Once you prove that to yourself, then it is intellectually dishonest to pull flat earth numbers from your ass and use them to measure the distance to the sun.
I see that you did not read the article I linked. I'm not surprised.
This argument is addressed in the article. Since you seem to be lazy and unwilling to learn new things (like most Round Earthers), I will post the important bits for you.
Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away --
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg/500px-Xlg_globe_3.jpg)
-
unsurprising for a flat-earther you ignored what I said.
I understand that if the earth is assumed flat you get one amount vs if its assumed round.
So I showed you how you first prove it is round.
A way that is independent of the distance to the sun. Once you self prove that the earth is round then you can't use the flat earth model anymore can you?
At the moment this has nothing to do with the distance of the sun, first we are proving the earth is round, not flat using angles.
-
unsurprising for a flat-earther you ignored what I said.
I understand that if the earth is assumed flat you get one amount vs if its assumed round.
So I showed you how you first prove it is round.
A way that is independent of the distance to the sun. Once you self prove that the earth is round then you can't use the flat earth model anymore can you?
At the moment this has nothing to do with the distance of the sun, first we are proving the earth is round, not flat using angles.
I have not ignored anything you've said. I've addressed each point.
Coming to the conclusion that the Earth is round FIRST is not necessary. This experiment proves a round Earth, and it also proves a flat Earth according to our model.
Which you do first is irrelevant.
Also I see you still haven't responded to the post you said you would from earlier.
Sorry, I missed this. Are you refering to the point about Special vs General relativity? It was a good question, and I am still formulating a rebuttal. Tom Bishop, however, shares many of the same sentiments as I do about the question.
-
No, because you first use trig to prove the earth is not flat but round. Then plugging in your flat earth numbers to test the distance to the sun becomes intellectually dishonest.
Incorrect. Plugging in Round Earth numbers is intellectually dishonest.
We could keep going all day, but I hope this drove the point home for you. Trig does not prove your case. Move on to a different argument.
No, using angles you can prove the earth is round.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg/280px-Eratosthenes%27_method_for_determining_the_size_of_the_Earth.svg.png)
Once you prove that to yourself, then it is intellectually dishonest to pull flat earth numbers from your ass and use them to measure the distance to the sun.
I see that you did not read the article I linked. I'm not surprised.
This argument is addressed in the article. Since you seem to be lazy and unwilling to learn new things (like most Round Earthers), I will post the important bits for you.
Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away --
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/ea/Xlg_globe_3.jpg/500px-Xlg_globe_3.jpg)
Have you run the trig numbers, because if you do, you get the altitude fluctuating depending on the distance. On the other site, someone just did an experiment showing that from his location, the sun was only 1,000 miles in altitude. On it's face, trig shows that either the Earth is round, or the Earth is flat and it fluctuates in altitude and it somehow retains the same apparent diameter the whole time.
Have you ever calculated the parallax for a 3,000 mile high sun? I will give you a hint: it does nothing for the FE position.
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.
Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.
Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?
It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.
Oh great, then whats the parallax of a 32 miles in diameter sun at 3,000 miles above earth?
It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.
Let me put on my surprised face.
-
It is massive and does not correspond with observation in the slightest.
Please back up your assertions.
-
Yeah, but what if its only 32 miles wide?!!?
No 'what if' about it. The Sun is 32 miles in diameter.
Do the flat earth measurements from several locations instead of 2. Observe the sun from many locations.
-
Typical RE avoidance maneuver.
No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.
How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?
make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.
Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.
And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.
Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.
If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere. Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere. Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."
No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere. Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."
No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)
Or perhaps the Journal of Geodesy(http://link.springer.com/journal/190)?
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere. Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."
No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)
A peer reviewed paper and a web article are not the same thing. As a web copywriter, I can tell you that web content is written with an eye to SEO and keywords, not for accuracy. I've had clients literally tell me that what I write doesn't have to be true as long as it gets the Google hits.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere. Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."
No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/)
Or perhaps the Journal of Geodesy(http://link.springer.com/journal/190)?
A journal is more like what I was thinking. I'll review.
-
If the sun is 32 miles away, how could you explain that in the North Pole there is a permanent day 6 months per year ?
-
Very interesting question, but the thread got off topic after a few replies.
Yes, I agree that we need millions of people to be in the know. And it is the hardest conspiracy to hide. And it will become increasingly so in the future.
Also, this conspiracy is one that needs complicity on a global scale: Americans, Russians and Chinese.
But then let's think about 911. Putin clearly knows the truth, but how long did Russia Today wait before bringing it up? Over 10 years.
So to some degree the governments are all complicit in covering up conspiracies. That is, unless you believe that Bin Laden did 911. But we can't waste time with that hypothesis, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
So, in my opinion the answer to the original question of how many people know the truth and how many people are successfully hiding the truth (from a flat-earther point of view) is another question: how many people belong to freemasonry and military in the world? Plus how many people are afraid to lose their job? I would say billions.
So if billions are willing to keep their mouths shut, we are we surprised that millions are keeping their mouths shut?
Furthermore, we know that two thirds of humans are busy trying to find food and shelter. Another (almost) third is mostly busy in stupid activities: watching television for example. The only people to worry about is those who use their free time wondering about things, like us. Maybe we are 0.01%. And there's another 0.01% who know the truth but keep quiet.
-
If the sun is 32 miles away, how could you explain that in the North Pole there is a permanent day 6 months per year ?
The sun is a little bit closer to the center of the Earth during the northern summer. A person standing at the north pole would be within eyesight of the sun all day long and the sun just appears to go in a circle around you. During the northern winter, the sun is too far away from the north pole and you would not see it at all. This is also explains the seasons. It is explained in the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Seasons#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F) and the picture below might give you an idea of how it works.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/a/a1/Seasons.png)
-
I think I can prove it is round:
For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.
If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.
In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.
No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.
-
I think I can prove it is round:
For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.
If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.
In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.
No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.
You are aware Antarctica is shut off to the entire world and you can't just go there on vacation without military supervision ... right?
-
I think I can prove it is round:
For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.
If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.
In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.
No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.
I think someone needs a geography lesson. Some parts of Antarctica are not even within the Antarctic Circle, meaning that those parts do not even receive 1 whole day in which the sun does not set.
-
I don't need to go there, it was in the documentary: "Antarctica A Year On Ice"
At Antarctica facing a camera North, the sun doesn't go past the front of the camera (or in a "sideways on" fashion if not facing North) like it would in a flat earth model, instead in the documentary it goes 360 degrees around the camera - which is impossible on a flat earth, because the sun would be overlapping the ice shelf by thousands of miles.
Granted, I have no clue which way the camera was facing in the documentary, but this doesn't affect whether the sun would pass "across" you (FET) or go around you 360 degrees (RET).
For the sun to be going 360 degrees around AND us being on a flat disc, we would be living in some sort of figure of 8.
Or, face the camera South... now you should never see the sun in front of you on a flat earth, it is above the horizon every day for four months so its not like there's no time to check it.
You can see the sun going past the camera when the camera is facing South, oops!
Flat earth busted, that easily. ::)