1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Composition of the sun

« on: April 30, 2015, 05:15:09 PM »

I believe that the sun is made up of almost pure phlogiston.

What is phlogiston? What evidence is there for it?

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?

« on: April 30, 2015, 05:10:12 PM »

If I, in fact, posted a picture of the earth that had stars behind it, would you claim it was shopped?

Given that it should be technically impossible to take such a picture (as Jura reminded us after my prompt), I would first ask for clarification on how the image was produced. If you could offer such an explanation, I'd have to evaluate it.

Assuming you have no explanation, CGI would be the most likely scenario.

Okay, if I found a video, made by amateur near space balloonists, that showed the earth, and then a white contrast change that made the earth look white and let you see the stars, what would you say?

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?

« on: April 29, 2015, 06:52:22 AM »

The exposure settings needed to give clarity to the earth in the pictures would not pick up the fainter stars, to pick them up you would have a completely white'd out earth, basic camera knowledge surely?

I'm well aware of that. Now that we've established the necessary absence of the most obvious (photographic) evidence, how exactly is Mostlyharmless proposing that "you can see stars behind the earth because there are stars behind the earth."

Has Mostlyharmless personally seen the stars behind the Earth, or did he see a photograph that (due to basic camera characteristics, as you helpfully pointed out!) couldn't possibly exist without CGI? In what capacity, exactly, can "you" see the stars behind the Earth?

 
If I, in fact, posted a picture of the earth that had stars behind it, would you claim it was shopped?

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?

« on: April 28, 2015, 06:01:12 AM »

I'm not a FE'r, the ISS photos are fake, according to them. But the horizon is an illusion, from refraction.

How could refraction let you see a clear boundary, with blackness on the other side? That's just not how it works...

That's exactly how it works.

Let us, for a moment, compare the round earth and flat earth view of what is happening: RET) you can see stars behind the earth because there are stars behind the earth.
FET) you can see stars behind the earth because light somehow refracts 360 degrees around so the viewer, in a spaceship, can see them (this is, incidentally, impossible)
please provide a) further explanation, and b) proof of your theory (as the burden of proof, due to the improbability of your theory, is on you)
Thanks.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?

« on: April 26, 2015, 04:21:22 PM »

I'm not a FE'r, the ISS photos are fake, according to them. But the horizon is an illusion, from refraction.

How could refraction let you see a clear boundary, with blackness on the other side? That's just not how it works...

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?

« on: April 26, 2015, 08:50:42 AM »

The general idea is that air gives the illusion of limited vision due to curvature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As in, the clear boundary in the video of a line which has the earth on one side, and the blackness of space on the other, is somehow an illusion?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why not send a drone to fly over Antarctica?

« on: April 25, 2015, 08:30:05 AM »

Whether it is ad populum or not is irrelevant, as the point is that the navigation system used would be RET. This fact is relevant, because "where the navigation system tells it to go" would be a direct (ish) route in RET terms.

Substantiate your claims.

Abbs what is necroing?

The term refers to posting in very old threads. This is usually viewed as negative unless you're providing a valuable contribution to said threads.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necropost

Okay, so, in an ret world, the pilot's navigation system, assuming that the world is ret, would, in a flight from south America to Australia, fly south and slightly West until it arrived there. On the other hand, if the world were in fact flat, the best route would be to fly directly north until reaching Australia. This doesn't happen, because otherwise people would realise they were flying over the Americas, the North Pole, siberia and China, and finally the rest of Australia, before landing on the south of the country.
This shows that, due to the fact that the flight times are the same in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere, that the world is, in fact, round.

And I apologise for necroing, u didn't realise a)  that it was a bad thing, and b) that the thread was old.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: April 24, 2015, 03:57:25 PM »

Well I have read the Wiki, and it's faith and pixie dust.

Thanks, but I'm actually looking for a serious answer.

The main theory amongst FETers is that UA only affects large objects, such as the earth or the cosmos, but this falls down as large objects do not fall slower, as one might expect under that theory.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A Commentary on Religion and its Societal Implications

« on: April 23, 2015, 04:23:56 PM »

Most Muslims believe what the Qur'an tells them about non-Muslims. After reading it three times, and studying in a Mosque for two years before becoming observant, I know this. You evidently do not. Read the Sunnah as well, where these beliefs are confirmed. And every Muslim I ever met confirmed that nearly all of them upheld Qur'anic standards. One almost has to.

I'm not convinced you've ever met a muslim

Ask me if I give a shit what you're convinced of.

Every Muslim I've ever met doesn't care about non Muslims, and doesn't follow the qu'ran's approach to them, much like most Christians.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 23, 2015, 02:00:47 PM »

Do you mean parallel like railroad tracks?

It is not the parallel quality, rather the angle  at which they hit the earth. If they are directly , then the rays will be focused, resulting in hotter, brighter rays. If they hit at a wide angle, then the rays will be  less and less hot. 

I wasn't aware there were multiple types of parallel. Could you explain what you mean?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 23, 2015, 01:16:14 PM »

The video shows the sun clearly sinking below the horizon, not fading away.

I guess that is a matter of opinion, since it looks like it is fading away to me.

You cannot deny this. It isn't fading away. It is clearly sinking.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 23, 2015, 01:14:28 PM »

This isn't the debate section, so I'm not going to argue with you. Q&A section is where I give the FE answer for your question.

My apologies, I was told to redirect my line of questioning to Q&A. Allow me to rephrase:
FETers, how do you explain this:
{video link}
?  The video shows the sun clearly sinking below the horizon, not fading away.

Did you notice that your video also shows everything getting dark, even before the sun appears to "sink" below the horizon?  It is almost as if the light is fading away, is it not?

Yes, because the sun's rays are spread out.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 23, 2015, 06:03:13 AM »

This isn't the debate section, so I'm not going to argue with you. Q&A section is where I give the FE answer for your question.

My apologies, I was told to redirect my line of questioning to Q&A. Allow me to rephrase:
FETers, how do you explain this:

?  The video shows the sun clearly sinking below the horizon, not fading away.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 22, 2015, 09:09:49 PM »

Then why can you see the sun half set?

As the Sun becomes farther away, only portions of it will be shielded from site. Notice that the Sun fades away gradually at the terminator, it doesn't suddenly disappear like a true horizon on a spherical world would cause.

Yeah..  it does actually  sink clearly...

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 22, 2015, 06:16:19 PM »

What kind of optical illusion do  you mean?

Due to opacity and refraction the sky and land appear to meet when they never do.

Then why can you see the sun half set?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets

« on: April 22, 2015, 02:41:21 PM »

The atmolayer is not transparent and is in fact quite opaque. As the Sun moves away, it becomes not only dimmer, but redshifts as well, eventually disappearing entirely. The horizon is an optical illusion caused by the opacity of the atmolayer.

What kind of optical illusion do  you mean?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The qualifications of Rowbotham as a problem for REers accepting FET

« on: April 22, 2015, 06:37:57 AM »

Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.

Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.

He did find something: nothing. I.e.nothing. He found that there were no records.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun

« on: April 22, 2015, 06:34:58 AM »

1)why it moves in a circle

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.

The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

2)why it doesn't fall down onto the earth

there is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).

Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).

3)why it shines like a spotlight if it is a ball.

I can't answer that one, not being a spherical Sun believer myself.

None of this is in the wiki, so please don't just direct me there. Thanks.

I'm sorry that you're finding it difficult to find content on the Wiki. If you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to navigate, I'd be genuinely interested to hear those. If you have any feedback on that, please post it in S&C.

Thank you very much for your replies. Just a couple of further questions:
1) Why would all the stars rotate around each other if gravity isn't real?
2) How can something be "shielded" from a force, or if that isn't the case, why would UK affect smaller masses less?
3) As an illustrious (to say the least) member of tfes, how do you believe the sun works?
Thanks again,
Mostlyharmless

19

Flat Earth Theory / The sun

« on: April 21, 2015, 10:19:21 PM »

I would like to ask FETers how they think the sun works, namely: 1)why it moves in a circle 2)why it doesn't fall down onto the earth 3)why it shines like a spotlight if it is a ball.
None of this is in the wiki, so please don't just direct me there. Thanks.
Mostlyharmless

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What would it take?

« on: April 21, 2015, 12:40:43 PM »

A scientist should in everything aim to disprove his /her own theories. Therefore, please reply to my post in Q&A