1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: March 10, 2016, 07:03:50 AM »

Mind it seems a bit ridiculous that the small sun and moon and tiny lights in the sky cause "Celestial Gravitation", but the almost infinitely more massive earth does not have any gravitation. But, who are we to doubt the Wiki?

What?  Did someone here say that the Earth doesn't exhibit gravitation according to FET?  If so, I apologize that they misled you.

You might like to make up your own definitions, but the generally accepted definition seems to be: gravity is the gravitational field of the Earth (above its surface) and gravitation can describe the the gravitational field the general term.

Though I know we do often see "gravity" loosely applied to other objects as in the Moon's gravity.

Gravitation is the tendency for some objects to be attracted to other objects.  "Gravity" is the generally accepted (and wrong) explanation for the tendency according to RET.  They are indeed two different things.  Celestial gravitation exists... celestial "gravity" does not.  The Earth exhibits gravitation (the most widely accepted explanation being universal acceleration), it does not exhibit "gravity".  I hope that clears up the confusion.

I'm still a bit lost. How can attraction be selective?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 17, 2016, 05:39:06 PM »

So I just measured the circumference and diameter of a circular can on my desk and obtained C = 167 mm, D = 53 mm.
Is this then not reality!??

No, you drew a line through zig zags and came up with a figure that does not reflect reality.

No, the can was round, at least to the Planck limit. Thus, pi = 3.14!

I dont completely follow, but I think the point Tom is trying to make is that circles don't exist in nature. It's obvious to everyone that the coca cola plant figured out a long time ago how to manufacture a can to be round.

... so the 'real' circumference in nature will be longer than the perfect circle, and sometimes much longer than a perfect circle, because of all the imperfections made by nature, right? But then 'pi' would never be a constant (e.g. = 4) - it would just be bigger than 3,1415.

I made the silly experiment where I measured the volume of an orange by submerging it into water (and having the water filling all the imperfections in the surface of the orange). Then I back-calculated pi after I knew the 'true' volume, and it was damn close to 3,14. Just sayin'.

Now; can we get back to the interesting discussion of the findings of Polaris and the flat earth?

I'm sure there're many mathematical- and medical fora with experts that would love to discuss Tom's new findings of pi and his cure for cancer.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Did I do something wrong?

« on: February 16, 2016, 06:43:03 AM »

Hello there flat-earthers and round-earthers alike, I propose a simple question, from one human on the internet to another. I must say, I am quite the adventurer, as I have traveled to four continents and well over 20 countries. However, my true passion comes in the form of hiking and climbing. Last summer, my friends and I started a new leg of the Appalachian Trail, with the goal being to reach ( or get relatively close to) the top of Clingmans Dome, the highest peak of the entire trail. We (almost) achieved our goal of reaching the summit, instead settling to camp down about 200 feet below the top. It was a nice view and the weather was for the most part clear. However, if the earth is flat shouldn't I be able to see significantly tall structures while atop such a vantage point? My question is what did I do wrong in order to not see any cities or any other tall structures. As we are planning our next leg this summer, I would like some pointers into how to enhance my viewing opportunities.

You're welcome! Happy hiking!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=visibility+atmosphere&l=1

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?

« on: February 15, 2016, 09:05:55 PM »

The question remains 

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the northpole?

I have to insist that a 'two sun model' is the ONLY explanation for how you can have daylight in South America and Australia and night in Europe at the same time. We have trillions of suns in the universe, so why is it so strange to imagine 2 suns orbiting our earth? I haven't seen any objection or explanations from other flat earthers.

I suppose that of these suns have exactly the same sun-spots etc? Seems a bit unlikely.

I know, I have a simpler explanation! The earth is really a globe that rotates! Think this idea might catch on?

I have no other explanations, and it looks like my FET supporters are busy discussing their private megalomaniacal interests. And it's not small things they have on their plate! In their own words they have (quote): 'Found the cure for cancer', 'doing Gods work', redefined pi, concluded that nobody ever climbed high mountains, and much more.. .

I would even forgive their stupid avatar names if they could just get the discussion back on track. It's almost like they want to put free thinkers in a bad light.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 06:46:35 PM »

Exactly Tom! That's why I choose an orange - because it's not perfectly round. I'll have water to fill up all of it's 'imperfections' so I can measure it's 'real' volume, and thereby estimate pi (which will be larger than 3,1415xx because of the orange's imperfections).

What's wrong with the experiment?

Well, it's really the same experiment Daguerrohype is proposing. He seems to think that two shapes with the same parameter should have the same total area within those shapes. He is wrong. I brought up the example of a triangle and a square with the same parameter having different total areas within those shapes.

How would YOU best estimate the volume of e.g. an orange?

Your experiment is irrelevant. Surface area is not related to interior area in any meaningful with polygons. See the square vs triangle with identical perimeter example above.

I'm just asking you a very simple question. How would you estimate the volume of an orange?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 06:30:41 PM »

Exactly Tom! That's why I choose an orange - because it's not perfectly round. I'll have water to fill up all of it's 'imperfections' so I can measure it's 'real' volume, and thereby estimate pi (which will be larger than 3,1415xx because of the orange's imperfections).

What's wrong with the experiment?

Well, it's really the same experiment Daguerrohype is proposing. He seems to think that two shapes with the same parameter should have the same total area within those shapes. He is wrong. I brought up the example of a triangle and a square with the same parameter having different total areas within those shapes.

How would YOU best estimate the volume of e.g. an orange?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?

« on: February 12, 2016, 03:41:00 PM »

The question remains 

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the northpole?

I have to insist that a 'two sun model' is the ONLY explanation for how you can have daylight in South America and Australia and night in Europe at the same time. We have trillions of suns in the universe, so why is it so strange to imagine 2 suns orbiting our earth? I haven't seen any objection or explanations from other flat earthers.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 03:36:17 PM »

It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

That would assume the orange is perfectly round. It is not.

Exactly Tom! That's why I choose an orange - because it's not perfectly round. I'll have water to fill up all of it's 'imperfections' so I can measure it's 'real' volume, and thereby estimate pi (which will be larger than 3,1415xx because of the orange's imperfections).

What's wrong with the experiment?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 06:57:32 AM »

It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense? 

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?

« on: February 09, 2016, 07:55:50 AM »

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?  Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia while, at the same time, it is night at the north pole? And please stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole, you can open another thread to argue these issues. Why stop with "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?" Why not "How can the sun be seen 24 hours a day at both the North Pole and the South Pole on the same date?" No problem, it happens for a few days around every equinox! At the equinoxes the sun just skirts a little above the horizon all day at both poles. I do believe that "timeanddate.com" is so widely used that anyone seriously questioning its accuracy would be scorned. As for "Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory?", probably, but they will completely ignore it, claim that there are really two suns (  with exactly the same sunspots patterns? ) claim we are lying or simply "prove it"!

Take a look at this day/night diagram: Day and Night World Map The map below shows the current position of the Sun and the Moon. It shows which parts of the Earth are in daylight and which are in night. UTC time = Monday, 21 March 2016 at 12:00:00 Noon. South Pole local time = Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 1:00:00 AM. From: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

BTW

You complain "stop messing this thread up with discussions about the south pole".
Last I heard the south pole was in the southern hemisphere and the thread is: "How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?"

Sorry bavcol and rabinoz,

I didn’t mean to derail the thread, but I thought the topic about “Sun in Rio Grande – dark in Europe – Sun in Adelaide – all at the same time” was relevant for the discussion.

I came here to seek independent information about the nature of our World, since I certainly don’t believe governmental institutions are independent.  So thanks to TFES for setting up the site!

However, I have been very disappointed with the quality level of the answers being posted here. I’m starting to doubt the independency and integrity of TFES. You are putting all freethinkers, like the 9/11 truthers, in an extremely bad light. Very convenient for the US government..

• Why is it that nobody from TFES exists in real life? All other truthers proudly stand behind their thinking.
  Who are sponsoring your activities?
  Why did Obama make ‘free commercial’ for TFES? Would have been more logical for him to just ignore you!?
  Why do you avoid reflecting on obvious observations and questions like the ones in this thread? Seems to me like you’re just working from a pre-made manuscript, and are not distracted by any input/insights/observations. Seems like it can’t be goofy enough.

Can TFES proof that you’re not just paid by the US government as an excuse to put all other freethinkers in the same nutcase basket as TFES? Are you professional trolls?

And now back to the question about how we can see the sun in South America and Australia (but not in Europe) at the same time? I would like to understand this better.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun be seen more than 12 hours a day in the southern hemisphere?

« on: February 08, 2016, 06:47:21 PM »

So... Can I assume that I just debunked the flat earth theory? 
Is nobody here able to properly explain to me how it is possible on a flat earth to see the sun in South America and Australia

Why are you so sure you can? They are on opposite sides of the earth on a round earth too. The charts seem to suggest you made up that you can see the sun in both places at once.


How do you know you can see the sun in both places at once? Have you tested it yourself, or were you told that?

I think it was a fair question bavcol asked, and I'd like to know how this works as well. In about 2 hours from now they can see 'a sun' in both Adelaide, Australia and Rio Grande Argentina. But who said that there is only one sun? Maybe we can assume that it's a two sun system (or maybe even more)?

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/adelaide
http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/rio-grande

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Ultimate Proof?

« on: February 06, 2016, 11:38:50 AM »

Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the earth is flat. But I think that the discussions are both interesting and challenges your thinking :-)

I want to ask some of the flat earth believers if there's ANYTHING that could convince you that the earth is not flat? E.g. if you were invited into space to look for yourself or whatever. What would be 'the ultimate proof' for you that the earth is, in fact, not flat?

I doubt that flat earth believers will rush at this. 
Before I put my foot too close to my mouth I would like to ask what are the accepted distances for:

Measurement	Distance I would use
Equator to North Pole	10,000 km
Circumference of Equator	40,000 km

Rounding the distances to nice simple numbers would be nice, as high accuracy is not needed.
I believe I can justify these figures (or close to them) from previous writings of TFES or widely accepted data.

I think it's a bit silly to ask rhetorical questions like that, because we can all agree on these measures (in rounded numbers). However, I don't see how this is a proof of a RE?

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:56:22 PM »

If your documentation is a tourist brochure, then I rest my case...

I'm glad you put it that way. Flat Earth maps are insufficient as well.

That might be the case, but at least FET are hones about it. RE maps are manipulated.

According to who, and what?

That's a good question. The only one who have the means, motive and opportunity is the US government. What is your suggestion?

There's a lot of independent space programs and satellite operators out there. Even our universities have student built satellites in orbit mapping and communicating, and that's from a country with a population of only 5,5 million

Oh - so now you have students to backup your outlandish claim? Denmark never had, and will never have, a space program. (Especially if Trump will be elected ;-)).

College students are a more credible source than you are proving to be.

I'd like to see the link to the students going to space..

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Earth (and all celestial bodies) are spherical

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:48:14 PM »

Geometrically speaking, yes.

So taking your argumentum ad absurdum; Earth = Basketball? Not sure we're getting anywhere..

Do you really, honestly not see the parallels between objects of the same shape?

I see the parallels. I also see the differences.

Other than size, what are the differences between two spheres?

That's a leading question. There's a difference between observing a basketball on your lap, and observing the Moon.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:38:28 PM »

The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..

Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.

Thank you Sir!

But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?

If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?

Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.

Sir 'Sputnik',

The 'Space Dog' Laika died in the attempt to make it into 'space'. That was the first proof that space is a 'no go' place. Thanks for reminding me with your name.

RIP Laika

People have died in cars as well. Your "argument" isnt even close to valid.

So driving to kmart is = going to space?   

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Earth (and all celestial bodies) are spherical

« on: February 05, 2016, 07:34:19 PM »

Geometrically speaking, yes.

So taking your argumentum ad absurdum; Earth = Basketball? Not sure we're getting anywhere..

Do you really, honestly not see the parallels between objects of the same shape?

I see the parallels. I also see the differences.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica

« on: February 05, 2016, 06:45:22 PM »

If your documentation is a tourist brochure, then I rest my case...

I'm glad you put it that way. Flat Earth maps are insufficient as well.

That might be the case, but at least FET are hones about it. RE maps are manipulated.

According to who, and what?

That's a good question. The only one who have the means, motive and opportunity is the US government. What is your suggestion?

There's a lot of independent space programs and satellite operators out there. Even our universities have student built satellites in orbit mapping and communicating, and that's from a country with a population of only 5,5 million

Oh - so now you have students to backup your outlandish claim? Denmark never had, and will never have, a space program. (Especially if Trump will be elected ;-)).

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Earth (and all celestial bodies) are spherical

« on: February 05, 2016, 06:18:20 PM »

Geometrically speaking, yes.

So taking your argumentum ad absurdum; Earth = Basketball? Not sure we're getting anywhere..

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?

« on: February 05, 2016, 06:10:06 PM »

The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..

Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.

Thank you Sir!

But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?

If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?

Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.

Sir 'Sputnik',

The 'Space Dog' Laika died in the attempt to make it into 'space'. That was the first proof that space is a 'no go' place. Thanks for reminding me with your name.

RIP Laika

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica

« on: February 05, 2016, 06:04:52 PM »

If your documentation is a tourist brochure, then I rest my case...

I'm glad you put it that way. Flat Earth maps are insufficient as well.

That might be the case, but at least FET are hones about it. RE maps are manipulated.

According to who, and what?

That's a good question. The only one who have the means, motive and opportunity is the US government. What is your suggestion?