9641

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

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

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

Volume I: Introduction

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

Volume II: Terra Firma

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

Volume III: The Cosmos

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

Volume IV: The Conspiracy

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

Each chapter within a volume should have the following sections:

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

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

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

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

9642

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

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

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

9643

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

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

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

9644

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

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

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

9645

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Justify this

« on: January 30, 2015, 08:26:21 PM »

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

Including petrified wood?

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

9646

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

« on: January 27, 2015, 02:57:26 AM »

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

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

9647

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

« on: January 26, 2015, 04:00:14 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9648

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 10:23:14 PM »

You are apparently just posing random articles without any knowledge of their contents. None of those papers are trying to prove that the long distances are because the beams are bouncing off of the atmosphere, as opposed to any other explanation. There is no challenge to the underlying assumption.

The link that mentions 90 degrees actually says that the antennas in use can radiate signals up to 90 degrees. You seem to not be reading any of this. Shameful. I expect better from you in future posts.

9649

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 09:36:48 PM »

I don't see any evidence in that link that the beams are actually bouncing off of the atmosphere, only claims that it happens. Where is the evidence that this is the case?

I thought Round Earth Theory had mountains of evidence and studies behind it? Surely, then, someone has done the necessary research and have published papers demonstrating this phenomena. Keep doing your research. Come back to us when you have something better.

9650

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 09:17:14 PM »

Nope. You made the outlandish positive claim that the atmosphere scatters the radar signal enough to obliterate it. You must substantiate your outlandish claim.

I am sorry, but the idea that the atmosphere can reflect radar images over the horizon, and that the propagation of a radar beam ludicrously bounces along the ground, explaining why the earth appears flat when truthfully round, is not a priori knowledge. That is something which must be proven and demonstrated, not assumed.

9651

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 08:35:50 PM »

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

You're being dishonest about your implication. Still, we're waiting on the math to show that your outlandish claim has any credibility.

The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

My claim establishes credibility through a priori knowledge that the atmosphere scatters light. The challenge is to you to show that it does not.

9652

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 08:14:07 PM »

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

Radio waves do not bounce off of the air particles in the ionosphere. They bounce off of an EM field. So your rebuttal is not only incorrect but inaccurate.

Actually, the current theory is that the photons bounce off of the charged particles of the ionosphere. How do photons "bounce off an EM field" rather than the charged particles as the currently theory states? You will need to clarify your position a little more.

You made  the outlandish yet-unsupported positive claim that scientists "proceed to make things up". I've made no claims. The burden, as usual, is yours. Good luck with that. Oh, and an example, especially one as faulty as Rama Set points out, does not substantiate a generalization.

Unless they're getting their information from the word of God, every theory in science was made up by someone.

9653

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 06:10:11 PM »

As I expected, you can't produce the math to support your outlandish claim. So your point on the topic fails. There's no reason to believe you when you claim that scientists "proceed to make things up".

I provided an example where photons are scattered off a surface beyond recognition. The same scattering effect which occurs when light bounces off fog. This experience is universal. It is actually you who needs to provide math showing that the photons could bounce off the atmosphere, bounce off a body, then bounce off the atmosphere again and arrive intact. That is the extraordinary claim. The claim that light scatters when bouncing off fog, or a foggy mirror, is the simple base reality experienced by all that you must work off of to explain how your mysterious mechanism works.

Do not ask us to "prove that it can't happen". That is a negative claim. The burden is on you to provide proof of the positive, that it can happen.

9654

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 06:43:39 AM »

Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.

Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through the atmosphere and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

Please share your math to support your implication. How do you figure that scattering would obliterate such a signal? OTH can be readily understood here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

Light and photons scatter when it is reflecting off of an irregular surface, such as off of a foggy mirror. The atmosphere is hardly regular, therefore extreme scattering will occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_scattering

Light scattering is a form of scattering in which light is the form of propagating energy which is scattered. Light scattering can be thought of as the deflection of a ray from a straight path, for example by irregularities in the propagation medium, particles, or in the interface between two media. Deviations from the law of reflection due to irregularities on a surface are also usually considered to be a form of scattering. When these irregularities are considered to be random and dense enough that their individual effects average out, this kind of scattered reflection is commonly referred to as diffuse reflection.

9655

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

« on: January 25, 2015, 04:55:00 AM »

Scientists do see things that support a Flat Earth all the time. They just call it an "interesting phenomenon" and proceed to make things up to explain it, such as atmospheric ducting or ionospheric reflection.

Look at Over the Horizon Radar. The Flat Earth explanation is that the waves are simply proceeding in a straight line, bouncing off their target, and returning. The Round Earth explanation is an elaborate explanation that the waves are bouncing off of a layer of the atmosphere and the ground, sometimes several times, hitting a body below the horizon, and that the wave somehow retraces its path, bouncing through between the atmosphere and the earth and returning to the receiver around the curvature of the earth, appearing as a discernible image, all without being obliterated by scatter along the way.

9656

Flat Earth Community / theflatearthsociety.net

« on: January 22, 2015, 03:01:45 AM »

http://theflatearthsociety.net

Apparently John Davis has proclaimed himself to be the American Flat Earth Society President.

I haven't seen this before. Is this supposed to be part of his book?

9657

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 21, 2015, 01:24:16 AM »

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for the things in the link.

Blah blah blah FE/RE claim
nu uh
uh huh
nu uh
nu huh
Don't you get tired of this Tom?
I'll start another thread so we can go over that link and all the ways it fails. That is not the point of this thread but if you insist we can go down that road so this thread can stay on topic.

I asked you how we should go about figuring out the true nature of gravity and your answer was basically that we can't. I think that pretty much squashes your suggestion. Where else is there to go from there?

Tom. This thread is not about or to engage in debate judo. Still not on the topic of the thread. If you bothered to read my OP you would see that my suggestion was that you work on the issue of Day and night. That (in my opinion) is the simplest and easiest way to provide an alternative explanation for what we see in reality. There are two other threads currently active threads where you have weighed in and provided illustrations without the model to support the way those illustrations were made. I think that is a great starting point. But I'm not in the FE camp and do not need ideas for how to solve the FE problems. I'm trying to show your camp a different way to see these fora as a tool for the actual development of your ideas. If you really want to work on gravitation and how it works in the FE model then do that. No matter what the topic is you should look to the critics of each assertion for the ways in which it fails so you can do the work needed to better flesh out your model. After years of these fora most of the troubleshooting work has been done for you in a very detailed manner.

How are we supposed to study Antarctica, the infinite earth, the nature of light, on a budget of $0? Maybe if you had some real suggestions, we would consider it. All I have seen from you is some criticism that we should do something, but that you have no idea what we should do or how to do it when questioned further.

This is precisely the point to this thread. Do you even read the posts you are responding to? I'll boil it down to one sentence for you...

You do not need to explain every detail of every claim, just provide a full explanation for one claim.


How hard is that to understand? I'm not trying to debate the merits of any of the FE claims. I'm trying to help you get some forward progress by changing your methods. Is the concept of getting the maximum output for the minimum input so confusing? Is it so difficult to accept suggestions of how to improve you methods, even if it is from the other side? It does not matter which issue you choose to go after, just pick one and flesh it out.

I did just point you to a topic we have fleshed out. The Conspiracy. There's a motive and a means, and plenty of evidence. Instead of discussing the matter, you ran away, claiming that everything was explained.

As per the sun and moon, I don't have a problem with the current explanations.

9658

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 10:28:01 PM »

But we've already demonstrated that there is a conspiracy.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for these things. The evidence is so powerful that even the most ardent RE'er I've come across eventually breaks down when these things are discussed and admits that there may be a conspiracy of some sort.

And so the Judo begins? Just can't stay away from it can you? I applaud your devotion to the distract and de-rail stance of the flatists. If nothing else you are consistent in this regard Tom.

Maybe you can't see that I am suggesting something that would be beneficial to your cause. I am trying to show you how a small shift in thinking could help your goals manifest in reality. I can understand your inability to see this. After years of constant bombardment, and general disrespect by the other side, it would be difficult for me too see it a different way too.

You should at least in part abandon the great conspiracy as a talking point. Even the space missions, landings, rovers, and all of that. Perfectly reasonable and coherent explanations have been given for all of the things listed in that link over and over again. Even if those pieces of the conspiracy are true it does not equal a Flat earth.

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for the things in the link. For the sneaker footprint in the lunar soil picture people still claim that an astronaut "twisted his foot around" in the soil and caused the wide horizontal grooves turn into thin diagonal treads... Every point in that link need to be explained. Round Earthers must be willing to step up to the plate in the face of overwhelming evidence and address them full front and center, not hide and ignore. If NASA is truly an honest organization then these things should be able to be explained easily.

It is not evidence of a Flat Earth, but it is evidence of a conspiracy. If you read the motive section you would know that the conspiracy isn't about the shape of the earth. All we need to do is show that there is a space travel conspiracy.

I asked you how we should go about figuring out the true nature of gravity and your answer was basically that we can't. I think that pretty much squashes your suggestion. Where else is there to go with your thread from there?

How are we supposed to study Antarctica, the infinite earth, the map of the world, on a budget of $0? Maybe if you had some real suggestions, we would consider it. All I have seen from you is some criticism that we should do something, but that you have no idea what we should do or how to do it when questioned further.

9659

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 08:07:08 PM »

IF
- you desire to have the great conspiracy unraveled
- you truly believe you are on to something that is hidden
- you are serious in any way about FE

AND
- your resources are limited
- the scientific prowess/ability of your community is limited

THEN
- you should focus on your best topic only. Flesh it out completely and put it out for the world to criticize. If there is any merit the sciences will find it and very rapidly have to revise and find the other flaws (that FE theorists have yet to flesh out) to better resolve our combined understanding of reality. If there is any merit to your assertions, the world (hungry to expand understanding of reality) will do the rest of the work for you.

But we've already demonstrated that there is a conspiracy.

See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

No reasonable or coherent explanations have been given for these things. The evidence is so powerful that even the most ardent RE'er I've come across eventually breaks down when these things are discussed and admits that there may be a conspiracy of some sort.

9660

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 03:33:13 PM »

I'm just saying. You want us to look into things such as the true nature of gravity, the size and nature of the universe, the map of the world, and the properties of a continent thousands of miles away on a budget of $0, without resorting to "debate judo" as you call it. We will need better suggestions than that, I am afraid.