The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: shootingstar on January 14, 2019, 12:51:44 PM
-
Again under the FAQ page it states...
The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve
According to whose definition is the Earth not a planet and what proof (not opinions) have you got for this statement as it stands?
-
Again under the FAQ page it states...
The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve
According to whose definition is the Earth not a planet and what proof (not opinions) have you got for this statement as it stands?
The only real answer you will get is that it's the observable truth. you can't individually view the earth externally (yet) so there's no individual proof that it's a planet too. It's a good thing mirrors exist otherwise people might think they aren't human either if they can't see themselves in third person.
I don't think there's any proof other than something similar to what Tom might say, in that by default earth isn't a planet until proven otherwise and that they don't need proof of that...
-
Well flat Earthers are always drumming on about proving things, so this is my challenge to them to prove to me that the we have all been mistaken in regarding the Earth as a planet. I suppose you could say that definitions are subjective. The IAU actually lays down the official definition of a planet and that is how Pluto came to be relegated to the status of dwarf planet. In that sense Pluto has been re-defined but it still most certainly defines the Earth as a planet.
I am more curious to understand why they think the Earth sits at the centre of the Solar System, Universe or whatever. Back in caveman times that was a reasonable assumption because they had no means of knowing any different.
-
I looked out my window. I didn't see a planet. It seems as if the burden is on those who believe to demonstrate something that is not experienced. Asking us to disprove your illusion is invalid in premise. You must prove your own illusions.
-
I can't see the aether of the UA, so therefore it does not exist.
-
I can't see the aether of the UA, so therefore it does not exist.
Maybe it doesn't and something else is making the earth move upwards instead. We have made no claim on the matter.
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
It sounds like the Wiki is not claiming an answer and is telling us that the matter has not been determined.
-
Well, than I cannot determine either proposed theories by looking out my window. So both are false theories, based on your premise of being able to look out your window and determine the existence of something.
-
Well, than I cannot determine either proposed theories by looking out my window. So both are false theories, based on your premise of being able to look out your window and determine the existence of something.
I agree. The matter is unknown.
-
I looked out my window. I didn't see a planet.
That is quite worrying. I would love to know where your window is in that case Tom. It seems the Illusions are on your side my friend and not mine. I guess you see whatever it is you want to see.
-
What about the guy on the ISS who looked out his window and definitely saw that the earth was a sphere? Why shouldn't I believe him? Some of the ISS guys are amateur radio operators and talk to other amateurs on the ground (world wide). I've actually heard them talk myself. Does that make me part of the conspiracy? I'm not a Mason, nor have I ever worked for NASA. It sounds like there are some serious questions here and no answers available, even from Tom.
-
Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Did I? That doesn't sound like me at all.
-
I looked out my window. I didn't see a planet. It seems as if the burden is on those who believe to demonstrate something that is not experienced. Asking us to disprove your illusion is invalid in premise. You must prove your own illusions.
Yet you see the sun rise and set and know for other places in the world. Basic sums determine the shape of the eath.
-
Maybe it doesn't and something else is making the earth move upwards instead. We have made no claim on the matter
So you're basically guessing about something that has no founding to it whatsoever then Is that what you are saying?
-
Maybe it doesn't and something else is making the earth move upwards instead. We have made no claim on the matter
So you're basically guessing about something that has no founding to it whatsoever then Is that what you are saying?
The matter is unknown.
-
stack's description is fairly accurate - UA acts like a current, because it pretty much is one, usually of aether.
There. That's where you said it. Bingo.
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
Oh yeah. Dark matter. How does FET accept it, considering it has not been directly observed (so, count out the zetetic method), and its theoretical effects have been observed via NASA instruments (not trusted by FE) located in space (never been there according to FET)?
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
Oh yeah. Dark matter. How does FET accept it, considering it has not been directly observed (so, count out the zetetic method), and its theoretical effects have been observed via NASA instruments (not trusted by FE) located in space (never been there according to FET)?
Who says that we do? That was one idea listed among a number of others.
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
Oh yeah. Dark matter. How does FET accept it, considering it has not been directly observed (so, count out the zetetic method), and its theoretical effects have been observed via NASA instruments (not trusted by FE) located in space (never been there according to FET)?
Who says that we do? That was one idea listed among a number of others.
According to you, it seems like the others are considered farcical:
I have heard on numerous occasions that the main problem with the division of the Flat Earth groups is because of the topic of the Universal Accelerator. Flat Earthers have declared that, although they believe that the earth is flat, they think that the Flat Earth Society's idea of an upwardly accelerating earth to be farcical and ridiculous. I hold that this belief has spread simply because the facts have not been properly communicated. I have been working on a solution for this. Please read the following article:
Evidence for the Universal Accelerator (https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration)
The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.
-
If this Universal Accelerator that flat Earthers refer to is real then what is the driving force behind it? What causes the acceleration?
-
I always find it weird how people like Tom can sneer at the concept of gravitons and declare that the mechanism behind gravity is unknown and therefore the whole idea is ridiculous and simultaneously believe in so many FE concepts the mechanisms behind which are "unknown".
-
I only see two proposed ideas of the force behind UA. That is in the TFES wiki, to which us REers are referred to all the time when we ask a question. So, ergo the members of TFES believe in one of those ideas. If not, improve your wiki.
-
It still seems to me that flat Earthers in general find it very easy to dismiss and almost ridicule many aspects of RET yet when they are asked specific questions about FET and the reasons behind it they are unable to be specific and say much of it is down to speculation. Much of FET seems to reflect many of the scientific ideas that were floating around a century or two ago. There is very little more recent than that which I can find.
With respect to the flat Earth community there is a lot more evidence to support gravity than there is to support anything else. Whenever a comment is made to the effect of 'mechanism is unknown' I interpret that to actually mean 'I can't or won't accept the current scientific model which exists but I cannot come up with a better idea and am not willing to admit it'. In other words don't knock an idea unless you can come up with something better which can be verified and tested.
-
Incorrect, Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Let me rephrase, per the Wiki, UA is described as a force that is created either by dark matter or another exotic matter. I cannot observe this with my eyes looking outside a window. Therefore, it does not exist.
Oh yeah. Dark matter. How does FET accept it, considering it has not been directly observed (so, count out the zetetic method), and its theoretical effects have been observed via NASA instruments (not trusted by FE) located in space (never been there according to FET)?
Who says that we do? That was one idea listed among a number of others.
β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.
The wiki does. In the Electromagnetic Accelerator section. Named after, oh look, Tom Bishop.
-
I'm a bit confused about this whole electromagnetic accelerator because isn't the speed of light one of the most universal constants in nature? c = 299, 792,458m/s? Light can be slowed down but it cannot be accelerated.
-
What about the guy on the ISS who looked out his window and definitely saw that the earth was a sphere? Why shouldn't I believe him? Some of the ISS guys are amateur radio operators and talk to other amateurs on the ground (world wide). I've actually heard them talk myself. Does that make me part of the conspiracy? I'm not a Mason, nor have I ever worked for NASA. It sounds like there are some serious questions here and no answers available, even from Tom.
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
-
I always find it weird how people like Tom can... declare that the mechanism behind gravity is unknown...
Do you find it weird when NdGT states the same thing?
Or did we miss something and the mechanisms are now identified?
-
I always find it weird how people like Tom can... declare that the mechanism behind gravity is unknown...
Do you find it weird when NdGT states the same thing?
Or did we miss something and the mechanisms are now identified?
What you missed was the second part of my post. It's not that some things in science remain undiscovered which I find weird, it's that Tom uses that fact to sneer at science but yet is quite happy to believe in FET and openly state that most of the mechanisms behind the ideas are unknown. You can't have it both ways. Yes, science has a bigger budget but that doesn't mean they're going to have all the answers. Especially when in the last century we've discovered things like Relativity and Quantum Theory. The more we look into the workings of the universe the more complicated it all seems.
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."
Get off your high horse.
I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.
The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."
Get off your high horse.
I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.
The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.
It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/
-
I always find it weird how people like Tom can... declare that the mechanism behind gravity is unknown...
Do you find it weird when NdGT states the same thing?
Or did we miss something and the mechanisms are now identified?
What you missed was the second part of my post. It's not that some things in science remain undiscovered which I find weird, it's that Tom uses that fact to sneer at science but yet is quite happy to believe in FET and openly state that most of the mechanisms behind the ideas are unknown. You can't have it both ways. Yes, science has a bigger budget but that doesn't mean they're going to have all the answers. Especially when in the last century we've discovered things like Relativity and Quantum Theory. The more we look into the workings of the universe the more complicated it all seems.
Things would get kinda complicated...
Utter BS being injected into the pursuit of knowledge tends to complicate things...
No surprise there...
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."
Get off your high horse.
I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.
The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.
It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/
So, are you an alt admitting he has no quote?
-
I always find it weird how people like Tom can... declare that the mechanism behind gravity is unknown...
Do you find it weird when NdGT states the same thing?
Or did we miss something and the mechanisms are now identified?
What you missed was the second part of my post. It's not that some things in science remain undiscovered which I find weird, it's that Tom uses that fact to sneer at science but yet is quite happy to believe in FET and openly state that most of the mechanisms behind the ideas are unknown. You can't have it both ways. Yes, science has a bigger budget but that doesn't mean they're going to have all the answers. Especially when in the last century we've discovered things like Relativity and Quantum Theory. The more we look into the workings of the universe the more complicated it all seems.
Tom does not sneer at science.
Where do you get off making that ridiculous claim?
Tom justifiably sneers at the piling of obvious lies and deliberate deception being pandered about by these charlatans today like so much cotton candy at a county fair, in support of the initial obvious lie and deception.
-
Tom does not sneer at science.
Really..? I must have ben misunderstanding him then. Only the aspects of science he doesn't agree with I guess.
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."
Get off your high horse.
I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.
The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.
It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/
So, are you an alt admitting he has no quote?
Your baseless assumptions are an obvious sign that you're not interested in pursuing that data and information for yourself and are clearly quite happy to just stay believing your own thing which is fine, but in that case maybe not bother asking obviously pointless questions. My point was that he may well come back to you with direct quotes of people having conversations over radio with the ISS, but you have made it clear you don't care either way and so before he bothers wasting his time, I offer you an alternative to find out for yourself first hand whether or not people converse with other people on the ISS. Unless you are willing to look into it for yourself (because let's face it, you won't believe him if he posts a random quote) there's really no point in your arguing it to be false.
"Do you have a quote from someone on the Flat Earth?" - see how pointless that same question is? If you say yes and quote someone, what does that even prove or disprove and why should I believe it's a quote from someone on a flat earth and not anywhere else from anyone else? If the FE way is to find the answers yourself then go do it rather than relying on secondhand, unverifiable quotes of people you think don't exist anyway.
-
Do you have a quote from someone on the ISS?
Would it make any difference to your thoughts if he did? Afterall it would only be a voice coming out of a speaker. I have no doubts about it but I can't see you accepting a voice as evidence. The school where I work once set up a Skype link with the ISS and not only could we speak to the astronauts we could actually see them as well. There was no funding for that. One of the science teachers had a contact at the ESA control centre who arranged it for us and the rest was set up with a bit of IT know how.
If I stated I had a quote from an astronaut claiming he couldn't see stars or didn't see a spherical earth or didn't photograph or videotape a spherical earth (Apollo 11, for instance) that immediately gets called into question by RE adherents as being,"...not what they really meant," or, "...you don't understand..."
Get off your high horse.
I don't care what your freaking opinion is about the question or belief about the issue as a whole.
The guy I addressed my post to either has the goods relevant to what he claimed or he doesn't.
It's a pointless question if you're already unwilling to believe or acknowledge his answers. Why not try listening in on the ISS yourself instead? Anyone should be able to do it just fine and they make contact with schools sometimes as well.
https://amsat-uk.org/beginners/how-to-hear-the-iss/
So, are you an alt admitting he has no quote?
Your baseless assumptions are an obvious sign that you're not interested in pursuing that data and information for yourself and are clearly quite happy to just stay believing your own thing which is fine, but in that case maybe not bother asking obviously pointless questions. My point was that he may well come back to you with direct quotes of people having conversations over radio with the ISS, but you have made it clear you don't care either way and so before he bothers wasting his time, I offer you an alternative to find out for yourself first hand whether or not people converse with other people on the ISS. Unless you are willing to look into it for yourself (because let's face it, you won't believe him if he posts a random quote) there's really no point in your arguing it to be false.
"Do you have a quote from someone on the Flat Earth?" - see how pointless that same question is? If you say yes and quote someone, what does that even prove or disprove and why should I believe it's a quote from someone on a flat earth and not anywhere else from anyone else? If the FE way is to find the answers yourself then go do it rather than relying on secondhand, unverifiable quotes of people you think don't exist anyway.
MY earnest reply to this utter tripe you posted can be found where it belongs.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11886.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11886.0)
-
There. That's where you said it. Bingo.
I can see why you'd think so, but you have to try and understand my role here. I'm much more interested in being an archivist and custodian than an advocate. I help with gathering knowledge and building a platform to spread it through.
My only intention was to state that people usually describe it as an aetheric wind. I don't recall the full context of the conversation, but I strongly suspect that you wouldn't find any element of personal involvement in it. Personally, I have no interest in guessing, and I'm not particularly afraid of unknowns. If you want to know my opinion, I can only tell you what's observable - and aether is not.
Is it possible? Sure. Am I stating it as a personal belief? No. Does that mean I'm ruling it out? Also no.
-
That is a cop out of a reply if I ever saw one, Pete. Your intentions? You speak extremely plainly to everyone here. You would have said your intention in that quote I referenced.
-
You would have said your intention in that quote I referenced.
And I have. It's right there in my quote, and indeed if you look at the thread you ripped it out of, I'm merely confirming that a RE'er's answer to a FE question is largely correct. You can scream and argue all you want, but you won't get me to defend a position I never held.
-
I looked out my window. I didn't see a planet. It seems as if the burden is on those who believe to demonstrate something that is not experienced. Asking us to disprove your illusion is invalid in premise. You must prove your own illusions.
I looked out my window. I didn’t see a bison. It seems as if the burden is on those who believe to demonstrate something that is not experienced. Asking us to disprove your illusion is invalid in premise. You must prove your own illusions.
Wait... you have pictures of a bison? There is evidence that they exist even though I can’t directly view them from my window? Dang there goes m argument!
-
Pete has made a claim in another post and states he believes it to be an aether.
Did I? That doesn't sound like me at all.
I can’t say for sure whether you actually said that, but it is clear you believe the earth is accelerating upward from your sig... I don’t see how that’s different from aether.