9641

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

« on: February 08, 2015, 11:54:03 PM »

How many hours have we spent answering questions? A whole lot more than 50 to 60 hours.

FE'ers are going to spend significant time here over the next year typing up answers to questions. The Flat Earther usually comes in and explains the current theory and then the RE'ers ask questions about it. That covers the "Theory" and "Q&A" sections. We take those posts and copy paste it into the book. A little extra effort will be needed to create the background section, but I believe it is necessary to create some context to things like who Pythagoras was, and what Galileo discovered.

A book can be compiled just going through the posts on the other site alone. We actually already have a lot of the content. We have thousands of posts to sort through.

What I would like to do is slightly alter my debating style so that I answer in the form of a paragraph or two which I intend to copy-paste into a book. That will kill two birds with one stone for me. I would be debating, which I would be doing anyway, and I will be contributing to the book. No extra time is invested.

9642

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 08, 2015, 11:25:08 PM »

He seems to be "sceptimatic" on the .org forum.

9643

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

« on: February 08, 2015, 10:16:45 PM »

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

What if there are multiple competing theories?

Write about the theory you support and we can go through later and categorize the models in the Table of Contents appropriately.

9644

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

« on: February 08, 2015, 10:00:25 PM »

isn't very helpful.

What are you having trouble understanding? The infographic I posted of what is known about the earth's underside was more accurate of an answer than your comment about lakes of fire and Morlocks.

9645

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

« on: February 08, 2015, 09:30:18 PM »

Apparently my image did not attach properly. My apologies. I don't know too much about computers. Here is the picture which shows what is known about the underside of the earth:

9646

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.

9647

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:

9648

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.

9649

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.

9650

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

9651

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.

9652

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.

9653

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.

9654

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.

9655

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.

9656

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.

9657

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.

9658

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.

9659

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.

9660

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.