The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Sceptom on January 16, 2015, 08:29:53 PM
-
I asked about what could constitute a falsification of FET on another thread, and got a dishonest though revealing answer.
Nevertheless, the same question applies to RET. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I'm sure FEers have arguments they think refute RET.
In your opinion, what is the strongest observation that refutes RET?
-
Moon walk is obvious. Apollo 11 never went beyond the Van Allen Radiation belt.
-
Moon walk is obvious. Apollo 11 never went beyond the Van Allen Radiation belt.
(Funny that you should answer this question since you so quickly dismissed the same about FET, therefore demonstrating that your approach is not scientific).
I'm not sure whether the ability to go to the moon is a refutation of RET. If men never landed on the moon (and if you could prove it), I don't see how this would mean that the earth is not round. (It's a the same argument that Tintagel makes when he says that accurate eclipse prediction based on RET is not a proof that RET is true)
Could you elaborate a little bit?
-
Moon walk is obvious. Apollo 11 never went beyond the Van Allen Radiation belt.
Funny--Using a un-falsifiable conspiracy theory to attempt to falsify a valid theory. Don't conspiracy theory posts belong in FEG?
-
Round Earth Theory would be blown out of the water if...
If...
Uh...
Oh, I've got it!!
If Tom Bishop were to come down from heaven on his dinosaur of justice and burrow a hole down through the bedrock to the other side, and prove to those heathen commie globalises that the earth was, is and has always been... FLAT!!
and also populated by insane people
-
I up this post and ask again: to FEers, in your opinion, what is the strongest observation that refutes RET?
-
It all comes down to a matter of trust.
- The earth appears flat
- There are experiments conducted by different people which suggest that the earth is not convex
- The government says that the earth is round
- The government is known to lie for their own benefit
- The people conducting the convexity experiments are not known liars
Therefore, the only trustworthy evidence states that the earth is flat.
-
...
OK
...
I've long suspected that FEers were only trolls with a bad sense of humor and way too much time to waste. This ridiculous answer is good evidence of that! I at least hope that I entertained you well by taking all my posts so seriously.
I guess my previous requests for you to refrain from breaking the rules were ineffective.
Please refrain from posting personal insults and/or off-topic posting in the upper fora. This kind of behaviour will not be tolerated here with the exception of Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense, which you may peruse should you choose to try and insult us some more. Please familiarise yourself with the rules of this forum (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0) to avoid further incidents.
Consider this post a warning. After no less than one more warning, more severe action may be taken against you.
-
It all comes down to a matter of trust.
- The earth appears flat
- There are experiments conducted by different people which suggest that the earth is not convex
- The government says that the earth is round
- The government is known to lie for their own benefit
- The people conducting the convexity experiments are not known liars
Therefore, the only trustworthy evidence states that the earth is flat.
The major flaw in this being that it is not exclusively the government that says the Earth is round. Faulty premises mean a faulty conclusion and so we can discard your argument.
As an aside, attempts have been made to find Rowbotham's records of academic accreditation to no avail, which is suspicious. Perhaps he lied about those to gain credibility? It is known that PhDs were not awarded in Wngland until towards the end of Rowbotham's life.
We also know that Rowbotham's pit bull, Hampden, was found to be a liar in a court of law.
It appears that aspersions can be cast on the FE side as well. I prefer not to, since the scientific deficiencies in Rowbotham's experiments are well known, it is much more powerful to discredit him on those grounds.
-
...
OK
...
I've long suspected that FEers were only trolls with a bad sense of humor and way too much time to waste. This ridiculous answer is good evidence of that! I at least hope that I entertained you well by taking all my posts so seriously.
I guess my previous requests for you to refrain from breaking the rules were ineffective.
Please refrain from posting personal insults and/or off-topic posting in the upper fora. This kind of behaviour will not be tolerated here with the exception of Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense, which you may peruse should you choose to try and insult us some more. Please familiarise yourself with the rules of this forum (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0) to avoid further incidents.
Consider this post a warning. After no less than one more warning, more severe action may be taken against you.
Sorry, I really thought Tom made some kind of joke. I deleted my post.
-
The major flaw in this being that it is not exclusively the government that says the Earth is round.
Who else says that the earth is round to a degree that it can't be attributed to a mistake?
-
The major flaw in this being that it is not exclusively the government that says the Earth is round.
Who else says that the earth is round to a degree that it can't be attributed to a mistake?
I don't really trust you to answer this, since mistakes are always possible, no matter what field, or who is involved. Care to use different or more specific criteria?
-
It all comes down to a matter of trust.
- The earth appears flat
- There are experiments conducted by different people which suggest that the earth is not convex
- The government says that the earth is round
- The government is known to lie for their own benefit
- The people conducting the convexity experiments are not known liars
Therefore, the only trustworthy evidence states that the earth is flat.
I pretty much agree with this myself.
My reasons are similar - there's more evidence to suggest Earth is flat than to suggest it is a ball.
Once you learn a lot about flat earth you can see it is "odd" or whatever to think it is a ball because it is nigh on impossible to actually demonstrate why that would be, thus it is flat.
If people can't handle that level of deception, I can understand that. It covers centuries and we're all born into it.
-
Once you learn a lot about flat earth you can see it is "odd" or whatever to think it is a ball because it is nigh on impossible to actually demonstrate why that would be, thus it is flat.
How do you discount all the other possible shapes?
-
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
-
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
What kind of "mental gymnastics" are required to explain a sunset on a flat earth?
-
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
What kind of "mental gymnastics" are required to explain a sunset on a flat earth?
There aren't any mental gymnastics required to think Earth is flat - that's what I am saying.
To think it is round (if we assume you weren't pre-programmed to think this) doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to assume it is flat based on general observations.
No one has proven things weigh slightly less at the equator, which could prove we are on a spinning ball but no one ever does it. I mean you could actually jump higher at the equator than you could at the North pole as well, but you can't hence there isn't any centrifugal force at play. Plus the fact that we "stick" to the Earth - the exact opposite of what would happen if gravity worked the way we are told.
Also all the planets would just get sucked into the sun anyway and never do. The round Earth model starts to sound pretty whacked out when you look into it.
-
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
What kind of "mental gymnastics" are required to explain a sunset on a flat earth?
There aren't any mental gymnastics required to think Earth is flat - that's what I am saying.
To think it is round (if we assume you weren't pre-programmed to think this) doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to assume it is flat based on general observations.
No one has proven things weigh slightly less at the equator, which could prove we are on a spinning ball but no one ever does it. I mean you could actually jump higher at the equator than you could at the North pole as well, but you can't hence there isn't any centrifugal force at play. Plus the fact that we "stick" to the Earth - the exact opposite of what would happen if gravity worked the way we are told.
Also all the planets would just get sucked into the sun anyway and never do. The round Earth model starts to sound pretty whacked out when you look into it.
It saddens me whenever I see someone use a Dubay argument on these forums. Gravity is a much better model than that and if you knew the basics then you'd know why we aren't falling into the sun in RET. I'm not saying that gravity is a real force, it's just that it has a much deeper and more complicated answer (which fails the occam's razor test) that rules out "falling into the Sun".
Gravity is probably the best Universal Acceleration alternative, and it's a really clever cop-out developed by RET to circumvent Universal Acceleration (which has been proven scientifically to be a real phenomenon).
Even Einstein himself has said that gravity is a "fake" force, and I think the fact that electrons and other similar particles don't have a gravitational field is solid evidence that gravity does not exist. Gravity affects 'everything' according to RET, yet it doesn't.
-
I agree, it is a matter of scale.
For all we know the Earth is a petri dish sized experiment done by beings that see it all as a 3" wide disc and they could have thousands of them on the go, or millions even. Talk about nano-tech! This is organic nano-tech, ironically the exact thing humans are aiming for right now on Earth. Tech first, then nano-tech, then "organic nano-tech". In other words the actual creation of life (as we know it) but on a tiny scale.
Let's face it, if our scientists knew how to make a 3" wide replica of the Earth, perfect in every single way - they would be doing it. We are of course nowhere near that level of technology right now, despite what most people think.
Perhaps a year here passes in one day "up the scale". So for the beings creating us it would only be a year in their life to cover 1650 AD to 2015 AD. One month for us would be two hours for them and so on.
If we were created like that then there's no way in hell billions of years are passing by 1:1 to the beings that created us. What on earth would they set it up like that for, they wouldn't be able to observe Jack Schmiddley! To me this can only mean one thing, we are fricken tiny.
-
Einstein never said it was a "fake force". Who said electrons don't have a gravitational field?
-
Because you can only observe Earth as a flat plane. It takes more "mental gymnastics" to think it is round than to just think it is flat.
What kind of "mental gymnastics" are required to explain a sunset on a flat earth?
There aren't any mental gymnastics required to think Earth is flat - that's what I am saying.
That's right, observing some local flatness is pretty easy. The mental gymnastics come in when you try to explain anything else, like sunsets.
No one has proven things weigh slightly less at the equator, which could prove we are on a spinning ball but no one ever does it.
Actually, they have. All you need is a very accurate scale and a known reference mass.
http://kernthegnome.tumblr.com/
Also all the planets would just get sucked into the sun anyway and never do.
Who says that planets would get sucked into the sun? Do you understand the concept of a stable orbit?
The round Earth model starts to sound pretty whacked out when you look into it.
That depends on how well you understand the physics of how a round earth works.
-
Even if the weighing was accurate, that means a force is pulling you down and pushing you up?
That is nearly impossible to consider.
How can a sphere make anything stick to it if it is spinning? I can't believe it lol.
No one can explain the mechanism that causes gravity thus you can't explain how a ball would make stuff stick to it. So you're suggesting if the "globe" stopped we would float away? I can't see it so, can that actually be proven? If not we probably shouldn't assume.
-
Even if the weighing was accurate, that means a force is pulling you down and pushing you up?
That is nearly impossible to consider.
Not at all. You just need to consider the different forces acting upon you.
How can a sphere make anything stick to it if it is spinning? I can't believe it lol.
Can't or won't? If you refuse to believe in gravity, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
No one can explain the mechanism that causes gravity thus you can't explain how a ball would make stuff stick to it.
So what? You don't need to understand the mechanism to see the effect. Do you understand the mechanisms involved in making the CPU in your computer work?
So you're suggesting if the "globe" stopped we would float away?
Umm... No. I don't think that anyone ever said that. If anything, if the "globe" stopped spinning, you would actually weigh slightly more.
I can't see it so, can that actually be proven? If not we probably shouldn't assume.
You don't see electrons flowing in the wiring in your house, let alone the circuitry of you computer, do you? So how can you prove that electricity makes your computer work? You wouldn't want to assume anything, would you?
-
I can explain gravity but it has to incorporate a flat earth.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2582.msg64585