21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In the Name of Progression & Unity

« on: November 29, 2015, 01:55:34 PM »

You don't go to a giraffe forum to feel intellectually superior to giraffes. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of forums where there are people who believe the earth is flat.

Analogy doesn't work. You're not a giraffe. 

Round Earthers argue intellectually with Flat Earthers in a Flat-Earth centered forum, and in some cases, there may be a sense of intellectual superiority.

Going into a giraffe forum with the same sense, one would not be intellectually superior to the giraffes themselves- but to the people in said forum whose opinions differ from their own. Just like here.

Welcome to the internet.
 

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: New flat earther with a new theory

« on: November 28, 2015, 02:57:08 PM »

I, for one- await this with baited breath.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question re: infinite plane.

« on: November 28, 2015, 02:56:43 PM »

We are likely enclosed within borders ---- like as if we were in the bass of a bowl.  The reason being is because we experience air pressure.

This is more plausible than an infinite plane idea, but the fact that there have been NO observations of the border, edge, ice wall, or whatever one would seek to call it, nor is there even any solid agreement as to what sort of border there is- casts a massive shadow of doubt over even the more plausible FE theories.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 19, 2015, 09:59:46 PM »

*mic drop*

Case dismissed.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This Made Me Say 'Hmm....' - Planetary Shapes

« on: November 18, 2015, 03:09:45 PM »

A question like this is really only a valid objection to FET if we rely on the presumption of RET that the earth is just one of many planets, and its structure and movement can be directly compared to these other planets.  As a planet, it fits into a certain mold, and so if we notice anything that seems to break the mold, we instinctively say, "Hey, that can't be right."  But FET doesn't rely on this presumption, and so to question the earth's characteristics based on comparisons to celestial bodies that it really has very little in common with is ultimately an arbitrary exercise.  The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

I have no idea how the universe was formed.  I'd be interested to see if anyone has any theories on that.

Excellent response, thank you. The only think I can pick on is this:

The fact that the earth is unlike the planets is no more strange or unusual than the fact that it's different to stars, to moons, to comets, etc.

The pluralization of 'stars' 'moons' and 'comets' and the assertion that the earth is unlike EVERYTHING else. Planets differ from moons, comets and stars. The earth would be different from planets.
Which isn't too far out of the realm of possibility I suppose- or wouldn't be- if we could observe other, similar bodies.

Stars formed. Bajillions of them. Planets formed. Bajillions of them. Moons formed. Bajillions of them. One single disc-shaped earth though? I have a really hard time swallowing that- especially since the earth exhibits many of the characteristics of other planets. We'd be similar...but completely different.

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 18, 2015, 02:22:52 PM »

The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.

What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.

So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.

Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.

If you have been on this website for any length of time you should be familiar with sandkohan's  modus operandi. I learned that a long time ago.

I think I'm starting to get the hang of it, and I recognize it from MY line of work in 'the real world.'

Evasive language, using too many words to say nothing, adamant refusal to answer simple questions out of fear of being trapped into an admission or mistake...these are clear symptoms of people who KNOW they've got something wrong, but can't- or won't admit it, either out of pride or for fear of ramifications.

I think the guy's been resting on the laurels handed to him from some of the simpler FE proponents for so long, that its gone to his head, and by now he's lying to THEM as much as he's lying to us, simply for the sake of his own ego.

Don't like that assessment? Try a 'yes' or 'no' answer from time to time- or- God forbid..an "I don't know."

Before I get the chop for 'no post content' - I'll go backwards and ask again.

Are all celestial bodies discs? If so, why are none observed to be anything but exactly 'round' when viewed through telescopes which you yourself can buy? How do you explain that every other celestial body seems to be 'looking' right at us?

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 17, 2015, 07:20:04 PM »

The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe.

What is even more incredible is the fact that there are no proofs (astronomical/historical data) that the Earth ever orbited the Sun before 1800 AD.

So the earth IS the center of the universe? Yet again, you're not answering my questions but supplying preposterous half-assed responses that only remotely brush the subject matter in an attempt to mask your own lack of real data or change the subject altogether.

Brother, you're so far out in left field you're buried up to your neck in the warning track.

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 17, 2015, 05:23:41 PM »

A "Yes" would have been sufficient, but you don't do simple do you? You do intentionally and unnecessarily complex in the hopes that someone will be too lazy to read what you write/post or that you can flood a legitimate reader with so very much at once that digestion is impossible.

Anyway. 

How do you account for every visible celestial object being 'aimed' right at the earth so that they are observed as being circular?
Why are none canted with the visible field oblong? Why are none sideways or 'facing' away from the earth?

This is easily verified with your own eye and a telescope you can spend a handful of bucks on.

The proposition that all celestial bodies are disc shaped seems to support an incredibly geocentric model of the universe. If geocentrism is NOT at the core of your particular brand of flat-earth theory, then not all celestial bodies are flat, indeed none of them are- up to and including.....well.....you know.

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 17, 2015, 03:42:44 PM »

Sandokhan, in one of your previous links you stated that ALL celestial bodies are flat discs, the moon included. Right?

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 16, 2015, 07:45:57 PM »

A global logarithm formula was one of the goals of many mathematicians (be it the falsified eighteenth century manuscripts of Euler, or the nineteenth century masters of mathematics).

I realized that to obtain such a formula a brand new approach was needed: one that did not involve calculus.

So you're a mathematical savant? What are your credentials in the field of mathematics?

I'm genuinely curious and not trying to be an ass. But it isn't every day I run across someone who claims to be able to solve complex logarithms that stumped the mathematical minds of history by creating his own formulas.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer me this!

« on: November 16, 2015, 05:49:38 PM »

if the earth is actually flat... Which it is proven not to be, the how in hell have people flown ALL THE WAY AROUND IT??!! Also, if you go to either pole, you can go right ove it and there you are on another side of the earth!! If the earth is flat NEITHER OF THESE THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, BUT STILL HAPPEN IN OUR SOCIETY!!!

sincerely,
D. Trump

While I don't believe in a flat earth, I do believe in doing a bit of research on things. Most of your questions regarding what flat-earthers believe can be answered by reading the forum's FAQ.

http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F

If you're going to spend any time here at all, I suggest reading all of the FAQ and some of the older forum threads. Mostly because newcomers who subscribe to a round earth model have a habit of asking the same exact questions of the flat earth society people- questions they get fussy about since they've had to answer them every three days whenever a new one of us comes in here with what we think is a clear-cut 'gotcha!' question.

Once you get the basics down like "Where to ship masts go as they sail away?" and "How do you circumnavigate?" or "Seasons? Time zones? Eclipses?" - Only then can you really get a real hand in the game.

While that does prove part of my question incorrect, it doesnt explain how circumnavigation is possible no matter what direction you go in, even over the south pole.

Correct. It doesn't. You'll find that the concept of the south pole is another hotly contested one around here, one without a definitive answer.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: why dont you guys put your money where you mouth is and go see earth's curvature

« on: November 16, 2015, 05:30:17 PM »

Wait. Hold up.

You 'created' your own formulas and surpassed what Euler, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Jacobi and Gauss were able to do? I read that right?

And I'm in the process of wading through 14 pages of your textwalls which really and truly provide a great incite to what's really going on here.

Nothing like citing your own work to prove your own work is true.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer me this!

« on: November 16, 2015, 05:11:10 PM »

if the earth is actually flat... Which it is proven not to be, the how in hell have people flown ALL THE WAY AROUND IT??!! Also, if you go to either pole, you can go right ove it and there you are on another side of the earth!! If the earth is flat NEITHER OF THESE THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, BUT STILL HAPPEN IN OUR SOCIETY!!!

sincerely,
D. Trump

While I don't believe in a flat earth, I do believe in doing a bit of research on things. Most of your questions regarding what flat-earthers believe can be answered by reading the forum's FAQ.

http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F

If you're going to spend any time here at all, I suggest reading all of the FAQ and some of the older forum threads. Mostly because newcomers who subscribe to a round earth model have a habit of asking the same exact questions of the flat earth society people- questions they get fussy about since they've had to answer them every three days whenever a new one of us comes in here with what we think is a clear-cut 'gotcha!' question.

Once you get the basics down like "Where to ship masts go as they sail away?" and "How do you circumnavigate?" or "Seasons? Time zones? Eclipses?" - Only then can you really get a real hand in the game.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: November 15, 2015, 12:12:02 PM »

The way it was explained to me, was that there ARE satellites. They're just being held up in the air artificially (as are the clouds) by cosmic-ray devices, which we can't see or find because they're easily camouflaged.

Could you let us know who explained this to you quite so poorly, or should we just assume that you're lying?

As flattered as I am that you think I'd be clever enough to make something like up, alas, I did not. Your very own Sandokhan is responsible for this tidbit of information. 

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.0

Browse that thread.

Specifically, Replies #2, #4, #6, and #9, reiterated several times afterwards. You'll find it all buried between his classic "You haven't done your homework" commentary.

Well, this time I have. I may disagree with you guys on a regular basis but I don't go making shit up to prove a point, and I don't particularly care for being called a liar because you don't happen to agree with me. As you erroneously assumed that, so will I assume (also most likely erroneously) that I'll get an apology.

If the idea seems way out in left-field, it did to me too, which is why I repeatedly asked him to clarify the statements he made beyond his famous text-walls.
I never got my clarification, but was accused of trolling for seeking it.

SOP at times it seems.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do you believe the Earth is Flat ?

« on: November 13, 2015, 05:35:14 PM »

I was going to get around to it.  However, geckothegeek cites popular opinion over half a dozen times as an easy way to demonstrate the earth is round.  Basically, his argument can be boiled down to, "ask <insert profession> and they will all say the world is round so it must be."  It's by far his most dominant argument.

The others are rubbish too, but can we all admit that popular opinion is a poor way to decide truth before I move on?

We can agree on that, yes, and apologies for jumping the gun.

However, the citation of people working in professions which would grant them a well rounded (tee hee) knowledge of the earth, how it works, and how to navigate it could be considered professional data rather than opinion no?

I might be more inclined to take the word of a doctor on the nature of a diagnosis than that of a guy who read an article on homeopathy once while in the waiting room during an oil change.

I might be more inclined to take the word of a mechanic who says I need new brakes than my wife who tells me "I didn't hear any noise, it's fine."

-Point being that the professional input of people should carry some weight when considering matters of discussion, more so than the average shlub who happens to have an interest in the matter, and this really shouldn't be any different.
If a poster came in here and claimed he'd been a navigator on the open seas for thirty five years, and he thought the earth was flat, would you look at him with the same scrutiny as the guys cited by gecko who don't validate that particular line of thought?

Professional input needs to be weighted appropriately.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do you believe the Earth is Flat ?

« on: November 13, 2015, 04:56:34 PM »

 

If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought.  Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?

That's a vast oversimplification of what he said, and incredibly hypocritical as a representative of a community who regularly dismisses scientific evidence counter to their beliefs as sham, doctored, irrelevant, and part of a secret government agenda.

If by "vast oversimplification," you mean exactly what he said, then I agree.  I feel silly citing things from just a few posts ago, but here it is.  Perhaps you'll read it this time:

Just ask about an estimated 99.9999999  +% of the world's population whether the earth is a flat disc or a round globe.

In the context, that was a proof of the round-earth that's easy to demonstrate.  I have no idea how popular opinion is a proof or how asking 99.9999999  +% of the world's population (an estimated 7,380,669,738 people at the time of his post) is considered easy.

Mind of a round-earther I suppose.  A boggling place.

There's more to his post than that single estimation. More which begs to be addressed, lest you look as though you've been defeated and are nit-picking to try to save face. You're ignoring the meat of the post, dismissing completely ignoring credible response to your initial countering of his post, and picking at an artful exaggeration, and THEN making one of your own with the last comment?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do you believe the Earth is Flat ?

« on: November 13, 2015, 04:30:00 PM »

If popular opinion is how science is done these days then it's fallen farther than I've thought.  Shall we dispense with science and simply vote on what's true from now on?

That's a vast oversimplification of what he said, and incredibly hypocritical as a representative of a community who regularly dismisses scientific evidence counter to their beliefs as sham, doctored, irrelevant, and part of a secret government agenda.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's do some science, fellas!

« on: November 13, 2015, 03:18:24 PM »

Except political debates are based in difference of opinion. There's no such thing as difference of opinion with facts. There's true and false. Fact or fiction. You can't have an opinion about that.

You can absolutely have a difference of opinion with fact. It's all in the interpretation.

Fact: The earth appears flat when you look out the window.

Interpretation #1: The earth must be flat.
Interpretation #2: You ain't seein' all of it.

This entire debate is the result of an interpretation of a handful of observations, complete or incomplete. There are basic scientific facts which everyone can agree on- it's the conclusions drawn from those facts which make all the difference.

Example:

Poisson's Spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot

Fact: Shine a light at a ball, and you get a light spot in the middle of the shadow.

Interpretation #1: This applies to the earth. If it were round, light would bend around the globe and it would never be dark.

Interpretation #2: This does not apply to the earth because specific circumstances of the experiment are not able to be replicated, (Point light source as opposed to a star, smooth surface, and fresnel's equasion has to be exact) and thus has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

Now, that being said- you are correct if you start to drill down and present factual evidence that is irrefutable and not really open to interpretation.

Fact: The circumstances in the Poisson's Spot experiment need to be exact in order for it to be successfuly replicated.

Interpretation #1: 
Interpretation #2: Correct.


Facts the world over, be they political, scientific, economical, or otherwise, will usually be interpreted and possibly spun- to meet the needs of whomever is presented the data.

I'm not arguing with you so much as justifying my analogy. 

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hi everyone

« on: November 13, 2015, 03:01:05 PM »

Many FE models have been proposed; however, only one of them actually works.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45022#msg45022 (two pages)

I was hoping you'd show up- if anyone could give OP something to work with, it's you.

Even if I don't agree with what you're saying, you can provide enough substantive material that they can get to work. 

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hi everyone

« on: November 13, 2015, 12:58:48 PM »

What I would do if I were you, is to avoid writing about the Universal Acceleration model. It'd be EASIER to write about, because there's a lot of "We really don't know about X, Y, and Z" and you could take a lot of creative liberties, but it's really so watery a theory that it's nearly laughable, and your writing would have to do a LOT of explanation which could dry up the story you're trying to tell- depending on the overall nature of it. From a literary stance, if you're writing about something with a flat-earth as a backdrop, I'd avoid UA. It'll be too much of a detractor from the body of your work, and there are too many 'unknowns' to dance around...unless of course the flat-earth is a central point to your story, then go ahead and take a swing at it.

You'll also find that there are variances in opinion regarding what's on the 'edge' of the earth-disc. Here again, nobody seems to know for sure. "Nobody's ever been there." "Nobody's ever survived a trip there" "NASA is guarding it." "There is no ice wall, but we don't know what IS there."

You've got some work ahead of you in terms of picking what model you care to go with. Start reading some of the threads. Check out the FAQ they've got posted here, and ask specific questions.

Good luck- and I'd love to see what you're working on when you have some of it fleshed out.