1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 17, 2018, 02:11:43 AM »

I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Pickle used NASA as her source for one of her argument. She thinks NASA faked space travel for money and says NASA is not a reliable source, but still uses NASA to support her argument. Don't you think this is cherry-picking?

and nobody has ever observed this "something" sending hydrogen and oxygen into the Sun,

Hydrogen and oxygen naturally flow into the Sun. In zero gravity, fire behaves differently. Here are a few excerpts from a NASA article:

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

(SOURCE: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ).

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:19:37 AM »

Our position is that only NASA and Co. are involved in a Conspiracy.

Well, no. When we used airplane flight time data(in 3DGeek's post debunking flat earth map), you rejected it. Does this mean all airlines are part of the conspiracy?

Also, you rejected GPS data because it was based on round earth model. How does this GPS relates to the conspiracy?

These are just a few of the evidences you rejected, Tom. Don't use double standard on evidences!

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 10, 2018, 11:46:55 PM »

Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.

Well, Tom what do you say to this? You have been rejecting evidences we throw at you because they are based on round earth model. How come you are just accepting this information.

For you to argue that there is evidence that ice wall exist, then you need to come up with the evidence that does not rely on round earth data. This means you cannot use most of the data on internet.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 10, 2018, 02:17:36 AM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes

Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma within the earth's mantle

Ok, I already asked about this, but how does acceleration make magma.

The previous answer was that the acceleration works like Gravity in RE model.

The problem here is that the pressure won't lead to heat that will melt rock and make magma.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inertia & A Cliff

« on: December 10, 2017, 06:14:42 PM »

To answer that question, Gravity does not pick and choose. Gravity affects everything with mass, just weaker on object with smaller mass and greater on object with bigger mass.

The reason Gravity act on mass is because the bending of space which cause pull between objects i caused by mass.

So yeah Gravity act on all object with mass but UA either does not work on Sun, Moon, and stars, or only affects us

so use the coulomb force instead.  it affects electrons but not neutrons.  why this should be the case is fundamentally mysterious.

the point is that all of the fundamental forces only affect some properties and not others.

Ok. I can still argue with it. but I will just get to your point.

So you say all of the fundamental forces only affect some properties and not other. So can you tell me which property does UA act upon? I don't see any difference between Sun, Moon, Stars and us as in mass and charge. Can you explain on this?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Paris to New York

« on: December 08, 2017, 11:56:49 PM »

To restate ghostopia, Eucidean geometry (specifically the law of cosines) proves that no flat map can handle the known distances among New York, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Capetown. Since this is obvious, the only possible argument is to dispute the known distances. A lot of electrons have been burned in a few threads over the purported simplicity or impossibility of measuring the distances. And the thread ghostopia linked (and I have linked in my signature) is the primary source thread.

Here are some thread links:

Cable measurement

It's simple

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Nice explanation. I knew my explanation was bad. Thank you for restating it.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inertia & A Cliff

« on: December 08, 2017, 05:17:27 PM »

But there's a hole in my model, I guess. Namely, what keeps us all from crashing into the Sun and Moon? Rats. I can't make sense of it.

Yep, this is what I'm asking about. According to UA, the sun and moon are also being accelerated, thus we don't crash into them. If all of these bodies are being accelerated, why isn't everything being accelerated? How does UA pick and choose?

in fairness, the same sort of question can be asked of contemporary physics: why does the gravitational force only act on mass?  why not charges, too?  how does gravity pick and choose?

To answer that question, Gravity does not pick and choose. Gravity affects everything with mass, just weaker on object with smaller mass and greater on object with bigger mass.

The reason Gravity act on mass is because the bending of space which cause pull between objects i caused by mass.

So yeah Gravity act on all object with mass but UA either does not work on Sun, Moon, and stars, or only affects us

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Paris to New York

« on: December 08, 2017, 05:05:12 PM »

The reason there is no official recorded distance is because Paris does not actually exist.  It is a NASA experiment to brainwash people

Ok. Now Paris does not exist... Evidence please.

I was wondering what anyone has to say on how far it is from Paris to New York. I've heard that this is unknown, but a google search says that it is 5,834 Km. Can anyone explain this to me?

This came from one of the debate thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996

This thread tried to prove that no Flat Earth map exist by using data from airline flights and using geometry. To use this method, 3DGeek, the original poster of this thread, established credibility to his source and proved it. However, Tom Bishop refused to admit this fact and said this to make this argument invalid.

The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have some questions

« on: December 08, 2017, 12:49:14 AM »

If the government can trick the entire world into believing that the world is flat, then they can keep everything that's on the other side to themselves. from what i understand, the other side contains deposits of precious metals such as gold and platinum as well as deposits of diamonds. by using these metals, they can secretly get rich without accidentally inflating the economy.

Absolutely correct.  We see small pieces of those deposits coming up through the crust.  At the edge NASA has guards that not only keep people from exploring too far, but also to haul up the minerals that are sent up from the other side.

Where is the evidence for this claims? First, the evidence that there is even land after the ice wall. I think this is impossible as there won't be any heat from the sun to melt the ice.

Second, the evidence that the land contains precious metals. How do you know that this land contains precious metal that you can mine up?

Third, the evidence that NASA agents are guarding the ice wall from people and mining the precious metal. Why can't this agent be from other country? There are countries that are closer to Antarctica than US. Why aren't they taking control of it. Why not China or Russia. Why does it have to be NASA?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Edge

« on: December 08, 2017, 12:23:21 AM »

The flat earthers here take pictures of large glaciers and such, some even labeled as so, and post them, calling them the supposed "ice wall."

The flat earthers here take pictures of large glaciers and such, some even labeled as so, and post them, calling them the supposed "ice wall."

If the Earth is flat, which it isn't, why hasn't anyone gone to the edge and taken a picture of the proclaimed "Ice Wall" surrounding it?

They have.  It's called the arctic shelf.

You noticed that the proposed ice wall that surrounds the Earth is Antarctica, right? I'm guessing that you are referring to ice shelf. Well the wikipedia clearly says this:

An ice shelf is a thick floating platform of ice that forms where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Edge

« on: December 08, 2017, 12:16:18 AM »

Do you have a picture of dark matter?  Do you have a picture of EMF?  They exist too.

You noticed that dark matter is still a hypothesis, not a theory. There is no known evidence toward it, so we do not call them theory. They are just hypothesis that is filling the gap for now. They can be replaced with other hypotheses that are being supported with evidence.

About EMF, we can perform repeatable experiments with them. So we do have evidence supporting EMF.

I answered these, but how is this related to what I was asking? I was asking how do you know that NASA guards are taking phones when you reach the edge. So what I conclude from your response is that you don't have any evidence to support your hypothesis of NASA guards taking phone at the edge.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Edge

« on: December 08, 2017, 12:06:43 AM »

Gravity keeps pulling people towards the middle.  Easy.  There must be a more difficult challenge than that to the Flat Earth Truth.

Well if you believe in finite plate Earth, this would not work. This is because the center of Earth would be the arctic and you will be pulled toward there. So farther away you are from the center of Earth, you would feel the Gravity pulling you not the the ground but a little bit slanted toward the arctic.

I think you have different model from this site. I suggest you take a look at this wiki page.

And every time you get to the edge and take photos, the NASA guards take your phone!

Ok, how do you know this? Have you ever been there? I thought this Flat Earthers only believe empirical evidence.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Junk

« on: December 08, 2017, 12:00:23 AM »

You are asking the right questions.  If you follow them to conclusion the evidence will be apparent.  Round earth theories tell you in essence no matter how far you go, you will end up in the same place.  We Flat Earthers prefer not to ignore to next frontier.  As far as satellites, they are there.  No argument.  Simply, I understand that are small solar powered machines perpetually in flight to provide us with GPS, data, etc.  It's easy to plan their flight paths around the sun and moon.  There is no need to explain things burning up as they fall.  I think they call it friction.  I think if you keep asking these hard questions you will be happy with the final result.  Best of luck.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "no matter how far you go, you will end up in the same place". I am guessing that you mean that because Earth is round, you come back to the same place if you go one direction enough.

What exactly are you referring to when you said "next frontier"? Are you saying that (in Flat Earth model) there are more lands after the ice wall? Do you have any evidence for this or is this just a guess.

At what altitude do satellites travel and how fast do they travel? I think this is a basic question anyone will ask. Can you answer that?

Also you hadn't answered about how can the mirror make Earth to be perceived as round.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions from a curious newbie.

« on: December 07, 2017, 10:05:43 PM »

Of course the world is flat.  Allot of people don't want to talk about the fact that it is on the back of a turtle.  Attached is some "Proof".

Oh, I thought no one was able to reach the ice wall. Where did you get these pictures from. How do you know that this is not fake as this site does not believe in pictures from NASA. Did you see the ice wall yourself? You know this picture can be photoshopped as well.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Junk

« on: December 07, 2017, 10:02:49 PM »

They use mirrors to make it seem round.  Huge conspiracy as old as Human travel.  If they can convince us it is round, they can debunk religions.

You are making it sound like majority of people do not believe that Earth if round. Do you think there are more people believing Earth is flat for Earth is round? If you believe that there are more people believing Earth is flat, then why does this site exist as this site is trying to persuade people to believe that Earth is flat.

Also how does mirror make something round. When I look into mirror, I don't see myself rounded up. Can you explain how this work?

By the way, how does Earth being round debunk religion?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inertia & A Cliff

« on: December 07, 2017, 09:53:45 PM »

But there's a hole in my model, I guess. Namely, what keeps us all from crashing into the Sun and Moon? Rats. I can't make sense of it.

Yep, this is what I'm asking about. According to UA, the sun and moon are also being accelerated, thus we don't crash into them. If all of these bodies are being accelerated, why isn't everything being accelerated? How does UA pick and choose?

Either ways have loopholes. If Earth, Sun, Moon and stars are being accelerated by UA and thus don't crush onto Earth, what keeps us from being accelerated? If Earth is accelerating us, than what keeps Earth from crushing into Sun and Moon as they are not accelerating.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia to South America takes 15 hrs?

« on: December 07, 2017, 09:50:55 PM »

That detour makes sense on the Flat Earth monopole map, but not on a globe.

By the way, how can you say that something make sense on the Flat Earth map where there is no true map? When we argue that for planes on Southern hemisphere to arrive in time, they need to break the sound barrier in some cases, you say we cannot say this because there is no true map. Wouldn't the same logic apply here, too? How do you know that it makes sense on Flat Earth map which don't even exist?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the map

« on: December 07, 2017, 05:07:23 PM »

This is on the wiki

Well, no. If you read other thread where Round Earthers are trying to disprove Flat Earth map, Flat Earthers say that they do not have the true map. Even though we pointed out that no Flat Earth map can exist, they still continues arguing.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity, and the sun and moon

« on: December 07, 2017, 05:02:51 PM »

The "constant input force" they have is dark energy... the lousiest explanation ever

I guess that works... The problem I have with it is that in the wiki it is stated as if it is true and says it is from the Round Earth theory. Flat Earthers should clarify that this is a possible hypothesis for the energy source. Also remove the dark energy being based on Round Earth theory because you had rejected almost all evidences we throw at you saying it is not true because it is based on Round Earth theory How come you accept this concept. STOP CHERRY-PICKING!

Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Where is the map

« on: December 07, 2017, 04:47:06 PM »

Flat Earthers argue that there is no true Flat Earth map. If this is the case, then how do airplanes and ships know which direction to go to. They seems to know which direction to go to get to certain place and approximately how long it takes. How can this happen if there is no "true map"?

If you argue that they are sailing with approximate map, this means you KNOW the approximate orientation of the continent on the Earth. This means you can come up with approximate map which are, to some extent, accurate.

How come there is not such map. Every time we say the distance from the airplane flight disproves Flat Earth map, FE'ers argue "You cannot say that because we do not have a true map".