The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: WTFisThis on January 04, 2015, 12:03:20 AM
-
I don't know if this is a joke or not. Do people actually believe that the earth is flat?
Have any of you went mountain climbing or at the very least skydiving? You can easily see the curvature the Horizon.
Hell, you can even see it from high-flying airplanes.
-
It would have to be a hell of a commitment to arrange a wiki, Q&A's, a library of materials, all learn all the theories and argue 100,000s of posts about earth's shape, all voluentarily with no payment at all for years and years and years.
Do you really think we could all be bothered to organise ourselves in such a way for a joke?
We think the earth is flat. Where else on the internet would people of such beliefs go? Would you be surprised to find stamp collectors at stampcollecting.org? ::)
-
To put it simply: This is not a joke or a weird form of satire. We are serious.
Flat Earth theory is supported by sensory evidence, as well as mathematical evidence compiled in these fora.
-
Have any of you went mountain climbing or at the very least skydiving? You can easily see the curvature the Horizon.
Hell, you can even see it from high-flying airplanes.
I've been on mountains and I've been in planes. I did not see curvature to the earth's horizon.
-
I've seen it flying from Toronto to Yokohama, Japan.
It's easily visible if you're anywhere higher than 2.5 KM above sea level.
-
I've seen it flying from Toronto to Yokohama, Japan.
It's easily visible if you're anywhere higher than 2.5 KM above sea level.
Nope. It is impossible to see curvature of the earth under 40,000 ft, so we are told. You definitely can't see it in an aircraft. Your eyes aren't sensitive enough ... how convenient that you need to be 40,000ft and yet airliners rarely exceed 38,000 ft.
-
Mainly because of the severe lack of oxygen up there, perhaps?
-
No, aircraft have oxygen.
-
Mainly because of the severe lack of oxygen up there, perhaps?
Is this a strange form of satire?
-
I mean, I understand why you would be skeptical. But FET is a legitimate scientific theory. Have you ever seriously thought about why everyone thinks the Earth is round? Nobody has any real reason for believing it, they just sort of do. In reality, the idea that the Earth is round was popularized by Aristotle. Other notable theories by Aristotle are that women have fewer teeth than men (they don't), eels spontaneously appear out of mud (they don't), everything it made out of a combination of the 5 base elements (it isn't), and the sun rotates around the Earth (RET disagrees, FET agrees). He isn't known for his accuracy and he certainly wasn't a scientist. No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat
-
I mean, I understand why you would be skeptical. But FET is a legitimate scientific theory. Have you ever seriously thought about why everyone thinks the Earth is round? Nobody has any real reason for believing it, they just sort of do. In reality, the idea that the Earth is round was popularized by Aristotle. Other notable theories by Aristotle are that women have fewer teeth than men (they don't), eels spontaneously appear out of mud (they don't), everything it made out of a combination of the 5 base elements (it isn't), and the sun rotates around the Earth (RET disagrees, FET agrees). He isn't known for his accuracy and he certainly wasn't a scientist. No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat
How about observations and measurements of sunrise and sunset at different times and places.
-
I mean, I understand why you would be skeptical. But FET is a legitimate scientific theory. Have you ever seriously thought about why everyone thinks the Earth is round? Nobody has any real reason for believing it, they just sort of do. In reality, the idea that the Earth is round was popularized by Aristotle. Other notable theories by Aristotle are that women have fewer teeth than men (they don't), eels spontaneously appear out of mud (they don't), everything it made out of a combination of the 5 base elements (it isn't), and the sun rotates around the Earth (RET disagrees, FET agrees). He isn't known for his accuracy and he certainly wasn't a scientist. No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat
How about observations and measurements of sunrise and sunset at different times and places.
We don't claim that the sun doesn't rise and set, and we don't claim that time zones do not exist. We believe the earth is flat, because it is.
-
I mean, I understand why you would be skeptical. But FET is a legitimate scientific theory. Have you ever seriously thought about why everyone thinks the Earth is round? Nobody has any real reason for believing it, they just sort of do. In reality, the idea that the Earth is round was popularized by Aristotle. Other notable theories by Aristotle are that women have fewer teeth than men (they don't), eels spontaneously appear out of mud (they don't), everything it made out of a combination of the 5 base elements (it isn't), and the sun rotates around the Earth (RET disagrees, FET agrees). He isn't known for his accuracy and he certainly wasn't a scientist. No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat
How about observations and measurements of sunrise and sunset at different times and places.
Instead of forcing a thread to be what you want it to be about, try making your own thread. Anyway, your concerns are addressed in the FAQ.
-
No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat
Citations requested. What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat? Each successful satellite launch proves that the earth is not flat. http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/07/chinese-brazilian-earth-observation-satellite-launched/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/07/chinese-brazilian-earth-observation-satellite-launched/)
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
-
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
-
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
You will have to excuse my confusion, but you are all over the place. Newton discovered the laws of momentum, not Galileo. That's why it is known as Newtonian mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Newtonian_mechanics) and the units for momentum are N s.
I think you need to do a little basic physics reading and come back when you are more qualified to talk on the matter.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
What is the problem with repeating the experiment?
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
What is the problem with repeating the experiment?
I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.
-
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
You will have to excuse my confusion, but you are all over the place. Newton discovered the laws of momentum, not Galileo. That's why it is known as Newtonian mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Newtonian_mechanics) and the units for momentum are N s.
I think you need to do a little basic physics reading and come back when you are more qualified to talk on the matter.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems) Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?
Oh and again: Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
What is the problem with repeating the experiment?
I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.
Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere. Because it proves a round earth.
-
What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?
The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.
How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?
Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
What is the problem with repeating the experiment?
I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.
Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere. Because it proves a round earth.
The Bedford Level experiment has certainly been repeated, both at Bedford and in other places, such as the Old Illinois Drainage Canal. Really, it doesn't take much research to find these things.
-
The Bedford Level experiment has certainly been repeated, both at Bedford and in other places, such as the Old Illinois Drainage Canal. Really, it doesn't take much research to find these things.
Did you think that a drainage canal doesn't drain? The first clue is in its name. Did you think that drainage canals are level?
Also: Remember the challenge VOE. Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person who took saw the earthrise in the famous photo here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html)
-
Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person
Ah, yes, because conversations are an objective proof of things.
C'mon Gulliver, let's try to fix this embarrassing trend of yours. Let's play a fun game. Before you next post, take a deep breath, count to three, picture something unrelated in your mind, count to three again, breathe out, and then read what you said out loud. Only after you've done so and thought "yep, that's good to go", click "post".
-
Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person
Ah, yes, because conversations are an objective proof of things.
C'mon Gulliver, let's try to fix this embarrassing trend of yours. Let's play a fun game. Before you next post, take a deep breath, count to three, picture something unrelated in your mind, count to three again, breathe out, and then read what you said out loud. Only after you've done so and thought "yep, that's good to go", click "post".
Yes, a conversation can indeed be a form of objective verification. I never claimed it was an example of proof. https://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=conversation+as+objective+evidence&source=bl&ots=1hEnw6GWlc&sig=LWCq96ZhlmRODfe6I6cqdfsxOKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DiusVIymDc_8yQTSj4GwCQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=conversation%20as%20objective%20evidence&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=conversation+as+objective+evidence&source=bl&ots=1hEnw6GWlc&sig=LWCq96ZhlmRODfe6I6cqdfsxOKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DiusVIymDc_8yQTSj4GwCQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=conversation%20as%20objective%20evidence&f=false)
-
Yes, a conversation can indeed be a form of objective verification.
*sigh*
-
Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
At which point I assume you have changed the subject as you moved from momentum to Galileo ... but no, you persist ...
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
But no, you compound your misconception by asking again.
So, do you wish to talk about Galilean concepts and Rowbotham, or momentum? Or are you going to just keep throwing in nonsensical and unrelated topics in the hope that by answering one question you can point out I avoided another unrelated reference to something somewhere?
-
Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?
Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.
It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.
I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
At which point I assume you have changed the subject as you moved from momentum to Galileo ... but no, you persist ...
Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.
But no, you compound your misconception by asking again.
So, do you wish to talk about Galilean concepts and Rowbotham, or momentum? Or are you going to just keep throwing in nonsensical and unrelated topics in the hope that by answering one question you can point out I avoided another unrelated reference to something somewhere?
Momentum is a Galilean concepts. I pointed you to his famous work that recorded his explanation of it.
The term momentum (in Italian, momento) was introduced by Galileo Galilei as the “virtue” of a moving object which keeps it moving. He expressed it as the product of weight and velocity.
I'm perfectly happy to discuss Rowbotham's ignorance about momentum, especially in regards to his sophomoric error starting on p. 66 of EnaG, dealing with his firing of a cannon upward.