1741

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: January 09, 2016, 09:04:14 AM »

@Roundy:
I was left with the impression after reading your Q&A (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F) that that was the model that was currently accepted by the society. Somewhere I even read that it was believet that the edge was guarded by government. Maybe I didn't do my homework properly. I'll catch up. But edge or no edge; there must be some unexplored land that need to be explored?

You didn't hear it from me, but our FAQ sucks.  It is outdated and badly in need of a tune-up.  I'm not sure the notion that the edge is guarded by the government was ever anything more than a joke.  I don't think anybody really takes it seriously.

Rowbotham really put it best in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe:

How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

1742

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: January 09, 2016, 04:01:29 AM »

If you fly over 'the edge' and take som good photos, then you'll have me convinced :-D

What would make you so sure that if the Earth is flat it must have an edge?  As you rightly point out, no edge has ever been observed, and it would be unzetetic to the extreme to assume the existence of one despite a complete lack of evidence (hell, it would even be unscientific... not that I put much stock in what's scientific).

1743

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circle of a Sphere

« on: January 09, 2016, 03:58:03 AM »

Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon.  That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.

Have you ever viewed the horizon from ground level and compared what you can see on the horizon on the ground level compared with the view from the top of a building or an observation tower ? Have you ever been to sea and observed how things appear or disappear over the horizon ? If the earth was flat, what would you expect to see, but what do you really see ?

Well, I would certainly expect the horizon to appear curved from very high above the Earth (for example, from an airplane), but the fact that it still appears flat from such a height has nothing to do with my belief in a flat Earth (to reiterate, the fact that I am able to directly observe that the Earth is flat is reason enough for me, and there has never been presented the sort of extraordinary evidence that would overturn such a view).

As to the illusion of a ship sinking as it disappears over the horizon, this is adequately explained by the presence of the aether, which causes the appearance of curvature over long distances.  It is the same reason as the moon appears spherical from Earth despite being just as plainly flat on its surface as the Earth is.  Obviously, that such an illusion should appear over long distances is nothing surprising, and certainly not enough to overturn the far more immediate evidence based on direct observation that the Earth is flat.

1744

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coincidences in astronomy.

« on: January 08, 2016, 06:41:34 PM »

I know his posts can be terse and difficult to follow, but sandokhan is definitely on to something there.

All I really have to add is that history is full of examples where we think we've worked out the mathematics of this or that and thought it proved the other thing, but were actually wrong.  Newton's law of gravitation is probably the best example.  It was so perfect mathematically that it was taken for granted that it was correct, and then people started noticing problems with it, and Einstein essentially proved it completely wrong.  And as sandokhan pointed out, RET has its own inconsistencies to deal with, despite the precision the op seems to think exists with its corollaries, the lack of a solution to the 3 body problem being a prime example.

1745

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: January 08, 2016, 06:33:08 PM »

The thing is, even assuming people have been to space and it's not a whole big hoax, we've seen evidence from NASA itself that the moon is actually flat.  We've seen evidence of the same about Mars as well.  Since they look spherical from here, it is only reasonable to conclude that large objects appear spherical from far away due to the presence of the medium (the aether) between the observer and the object.  I believe that expeditions to space have proven that the Earth is flat, but the data has continually been misinterpreted thanks to the overarching bias that the Earth is round, which like many lies throughout history can be ultimately attributed to the insidious influence of the Catholic Church.

1746

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Klaus Penbender Has Passed

« on: January 08, 2016, 08:04:52 AM »

The only thing that can be said at the present time is that the radioactive decay rates are changing: the dextrorotatory component of the subquark strings is vibrating at a different rate.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

1747

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Klaus Penbender Has Passed

« on: January 08, 2016, 07:04:42 AM »

rip

1748

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth is flat

« on: January 06, 2016, 06:34:29 AM »

Question about but what you have observed.:  Have you ever been to sea ?

Certainly.

1749

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth is flat

« on: January 06, 2016, 01:35:25 AM »

Why is earth flat?
By this I mean:
What distinct observation supports the idea that earth is flat, and remember that if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypothese.

Well, I look down, I see a flat Earth, I have no reason to believe it is not flat.  It is up to you to provide evidence that the Earth is not flat.  Just remember that if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypothesis.

I don't know how much experience these persons who call themselves "True Flat Earth Believers" have had or what kind of work or profession they are in. If they are only basing their belief in "What I see out my window"  then I can see why they might believe the earth was flat. If they have gone no further than this, their belief might be understandable.

I base my belief in a flat Earth on the fact that it is what I have always observed, under all circumstances.  If you are able to provide solid proof that my senses are deceiving me, please go ahead.  The onus is on you to prove that I am wrong because you are the one making the claim that defies direct observation.  As yet among the thousands of REers who have come to this website and its sister site @ theflataearthsociety.org and tried to prove the Earth is not flat, not a single one has been able to do so.  If you can prove the Earth is round, please do so, rather than simply saying you are able to do so.  It might be more convincing.

1750

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 06, 2016, 01:26:34 AM »

I am not one of the intellectual persons on this website, but in my limited studies of various phases of science, such as chemistry or physics for only two examples, that was what it was: Inquiry, Experiment and Investigation. That is how  the studies in both the theory and laboratory sessions in those subjects are conducted.

Well I am sorry that you're so poorly versed in the scientific method.  There are lots of books on the subject; perhaps you should visit your local library.  You might learn something useful (or at the very least interesting)! 

1751

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 05, 2016, 06:23:09 PM »

How did you come to this conclusion if you're not even proceeding by the zetetic method to begin with?

The zetetic method begins with experiment and builds from there.  The scientific method begins with hypothesis (guessing) and is inherently biased.  The zetetic method is far superior.  Looking out my window is only a springboard.  Without strong evidence to the contrary of what I observe, I have no reason to doubt what I observe.  That is the cornerstone of zeteticism.

Also I'm not asking you to perform or fund my little experiment.  I'm asking why the FES doesn't perform or fund such an experiment.  If the theory is correct they have absolutely nothing to lose from the endeavor and everything to gain.  It seems only logical, if the theory is correct, that the society would be chomping at the bit to take on this experiment.

I don't think you're quite familiar enough with our theories to make that kind of judgment, but I want you to know I value your opinion nonetheless.  As I said, even if such an experiment were performed, it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth.  Please pay attention. 

1752

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)

« on: January 05, 2016, 07:00:05 AM »

I kind of feel like it should be pointed out that unless Luke's training took half an hour we couldn't have possibly seen it in its entirety.

1753

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circle of a Sphere

« on: January 05, 2016, 06:51:34 AM »

Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon.  That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.

1754

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)

« on: January 05, 2016, 04:35:21 AM »

Inventor of the rage smiley! 

You are not the inventor of the rage smiley!

Prove it! 

1755

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 05, 2016, 04:32:30 AM »

How are the zetetic methods of the FES not flawed?

I've seen numerous iterations of "I don't see a curve, so the Earth is flat.".

Where are the reports and observations of the zetetic study of the ice wall and what lies beyond?

This would be a very easy proof.

One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles.

180 degrees of latitude in total.

A radius of 10,800 nautical miles from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south.

The circumference of the flat Earth, at the ice wall, would be approximately 67,000 nautical miles (depending on variances of the ice wall coast line).

A group of zetetists (for lack of a better word, correct word?) and a group of scientists, using mutually agreed upon methods of measurement, board a ship (crewed equally with flat Earth and round Earth proponents) and set sail for the ice wall.  Once they arrive at the ice wall turn east or west and measure the time it takes to make one complete circuit around the ice wall as well as measuring the distance around the same.

If this measurement is done and the circumference is proved to be approximately 67,000 nautical mile the FES would provide the best proof of their theory.  If the measurement does not prove to be anywhere close to 67,000 nautical miles the FES theory begins to fall apart.

This is the core of inquiry and investigation.  Why has this endeavor never been undertaken?

Believe me, if I had the budget I would be only too happy to perform your little experiment.  I don't (and frankly I'm not convinced it would necessarily prove anything anyway as regards the shape of the Earth).  Fortunately, I really don't need to to see that the Earth is flat.  I see that the Earth is flat by looking out my window.

1756

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)

« on: January 04, 2016, 09:16:04 PM »

Did my lack of willingness to read a seven-page thread through bother you?

No, but to comment on opinions you haven't read did.

As I pointed out, I have read those opinions.  Just not necessarily in this thread.  I didn't single anybody out but Saddam and Thork, and even them only extremely abstractly based on their past actions (they will both look for things to argue about on any topic, we both know this I'm sure, Saddam in particular when it comes to mass media and even more in particular when it comes to fanboyish mass media), and not in regards to any specific opinions about the movie.

Anyway back for about twenty-four hours and already ruffling feathers!  Whoot!

1757

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)

« on: January 04, 2016, 07:47:28 PM »

I'm not reading through this entire thread to see what others have had to say.  I saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it.  If FES is the reflection of the rest of the internet that it has tended to be in the past then I am sure some people are complaining that it's too much like the original movie, or that there's too much pandering to the fanbase.

Both arguments are stupid.

I enjoyed it.  I thought the new characters were engaging and I liked the actors playing them.  It was a good story.  Even if it did borrow a little heavily from the original movie, the original movie borrowed heavily from myth, spaghetti westerns, and pulp serials itself, so who cares?  I appreciated that the look of the originals was recaptured by shooting on 35mm film and that those ridiculous digital effects that cluttered the prequels were minimized.  They were never going to please everybody, and certain people (Saddam, for example, or Thork I'm sure) were probably looking for things to nitpick the whole time they were watching the movie.  That's fine; everybody thinks they're a critic.  I left the theater satisfied and looking forward to seeing where they're going with the story and that's what matters to me.

I'm not going to read this whole post to see what you had to say, in fact, I'm going to assume that like some parts of the internet, you thought that it was the best film or the saga but you wished that they had white, male actors playing the lead roles.

Did my lack of willingness to read a seven-page thread through bother you?  My apologies.  In fact I did cheat a little bit.  I read the first few posts, but I wasn't willing to spend the time it would take reading everything before giving my own opinion.

Anyway, chicks should always be love interests; it's just right.  But at least they made the black guy mostly ineffectual.

1758

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars ep 7 (with spoilers)

« on: January 04, 2016, 06:53:36 PM »

>assumes I disliked it

When did I do that?  All I really said was that you would have looked for things to nitpick about it, and I have like eight years of history backing me up on that.

ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Also, your odd defense of the repeated elements in this film by pointing to the original trilogy's influences is ridiculous.  Pretty much every story in this day and age is going to be influenced by something, but most people - especially younger audiences - would have very little familiarity with spaghetti westerns and those goofy capeshit serials.  There's no comparison between a movie being derivative of sources like them and a movie being derivative of one of the most successful movies of all time, which it also happens to be a direct sequel to.

It is not uncommon for the same themes and motifs to continue popping up in the same series of stories.  Some would even say it's expected.  For a saga like this, that some elements from the original story would be repeated was absolutely inevitable. 

Like Rama Set said it's how they use those themes and motifs that matters, and I think the new movie was successful enough in its creation of engaging new characters (characters that really bear little resemblance beyond some very superficial comparisons to those in the original) that it worked.

My main criticism of the movie is that its story depends maybe a bit too much on coincidence on top of coincidence, but that's also been something of a mainstay of the movies in the past, and to some extent to films/storytelling in general, and once the story got rolling it didn't even seem to matter.

1759

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 04, 2016, 06:25:25 PM »

If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?

Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.

Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.

Is this not what science does?

It is certainly what science purports to do, but its methods of doing so are flawed.

1760

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 04, 2016, 08:41:53 AM »

If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?

Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.