There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.For what it's worth, there do seem to be plenty of people in here who recognize that IF the Earth is flat, it seems very unlikely that it would be unknown unless there was an effort made to hide it. There are simply too many people who would be discovering their RE assumptions failing them. For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves. Setting aside the science (there is already at least one thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4658.0) discussing it, let's not rehash it here) it is a very precise instrument. If the tunnels were built with the Earth's curvature in mind on a flat earth, the lasers would miss their targets. Therefore, in that case one of two things must be true:
For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves. [...]Please familiarise yourself with the phenomenon of electromagnetic acceleration.
You really are serious? What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?For example, consider the construction of the laser interferometers used to observe gravitational waves. [...]Please familiarise yourself with the phenomenon of electromagnetic acceleration.
What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?The experiment you yourself described can be performed over a short distance. Unless you account for EAT, you're going to miss the mark.
the sun will rise due east everywhere on earth, except at the poles which will have 24 hour daylightIncorrect.
What about a little evidence that such a phenomenon exists?The experiment you yourself described can be performed over a short distance. Unless you account for EAT, you're going to miss the mark.
the sun will rise due east everywhere on earth, except at the poles which will have 24 hour daylightIncorrect.
I am not being civil calling Flat Earth assumptions "magic", but Flat Earthers are quite happy to call gravity magic and denigrate many "scientists" (philosophers or astronomers) in the most disparaging fashion and accuse NASA of everything under the sun.
The rest of your post consists of several paragraphs which can be summarised as "I disagree with you and I'm very sad about this". I'm not going to waste my time on those until you start behaving in at least a vaguely civil manner.
If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.
And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?
Mind you the poles are a little harder to checkWell, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.
I am not being civilCorrect.
Don't the rules apply to the admins? Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate. Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you.If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?Mind you the poles are a little harder to checkWell, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.I am not being civilCorrect.
Don't the rules apply to the admins?Sorry, which admins?
Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate.I respectfully disagree. I'd also recommend that you look at your own posts - something to do with glass houses.
Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you."Obvious facts" such as that rabinoz doesn't like UA and EAT. Awesome debate, 10/10.
March 20 will supply you with enough "phenomenons" to totally dismiss FET. There's even enough time to coordinate with fellow users globally.There might be enough time for us to coordinate, but there's definitely not enough time for us to overturn the Antarctic Treaty. Not being able to actually access the area of contention is a bit of a big one, don't you think?
Again with the arrogant attitude. Classic, and predictable.Don't the rules apply to the admins?Sorry, which admins?Low content post, and it doesn't contribute to the debate.I respectfully disagree. I'd also recommend that you look at your own posts - something to do with glass houses.Seems more like a way to avoid the obvious facts rabinoz is throwing at you."Obvious facts" such as that rabinoz doesn't like UA and EAT. Awesome debate, 10/10.March 20 will supply you with enough "phenomenons" to totally dismiss FET. There's even enough time to coordinate with fellow users globally.There might be enough time for us to coordinate, but there's definitely not enough time for us to overturn the Antarctic Treaty. Not being able to actually access the area of contention is a bit of a big one, don't you think?
If not magic, it really is an amazing coincidence!Ah, yes, the "it doesn't sound intuitive so it must be false" argument. I see you're going straight for the religious fundamentalist approach. Good form.And, why do you claim that? You have never tested it! But I dare you to check with all your warrior mates all over the world and see it I'm not right.Niiiiice, the "I dare you to prove a negative, and if you can't then I must be right" trope. You're really taking the creationist apologist cake today, aren't you?Mind you the poles are a little harder to checkWell, at least you understand why your suggestion was shite. That's something.I am not being civilCorrect.
| Sometimes he puts a whole shit load of information into a skinny table for some reason But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape. |
You can go to antarctica as much as you want.Incorrect.
Again with the arrogant attitude.You're one to talk - butting into a discussion with nothing but insults to add, expecting to be taken seriously.
This point has been debated here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4315.0) before. However according to the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy) to which RE participants are so often directed:Yeah, but smart person that could gain all this power should known to use the advantage of telling the truth to gain more funding of researching the shape of the world they live on, instead of wasting money making propaganda of space travel.QuoteThere is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.
But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.Cavendish experiment is about finding Earth density, it requires the assumption that gravity is the product of attraction between masses, since the experiment give a result of 99% accuracy that couldn't be an accident, either a total hoax or a real success. If you believe the Cavendish experiment did happen as we are told, then gravity which is the product of attraction between mass would pull the Earth into a spherical form should it be a flat world.
This point has been debated here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4315.0) before. However according to the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy) to which RE participants are so often directed:Yeah, but smart person that could gain all this power should known to use the advantage of telling the truth to gain more funding of researching the shape of the world they live on, instead of wasting money making propaganda of space travel.QuoteThere is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.Cavendish experiment is about finding Earth density, it requires the assumption that gravity is the product of attraction between masses, since the experiment give a result of 99% accuracy that couldn't be an accident, either a total hoax or a real success. If you believe the Cavendish experiment did happen as we are told, then gravity which is the product of attraction between mass would pull the Earth into a spherical form should it be a flat world.
If you think the Cavendish experiment is a hoax please dispute this in a new topic.
Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.
And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges.
I don't know what the point of discussing anything with you. You question gravity, so I quote the Cavendish Experiment and say that it has been repeated dozens (that might have been the word), so you come back with:Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.
And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges.
Any documented evidence or experiments to attest to this? Or is this purely hypothetical still? Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anything, even in pure logical standpoint it is the attraction of one molecule to another. If you have a disc with a certain thickness, any molecule attracts to any other molecule, at the inverse squared of the distance between them. The molecules on the far edges of a disc would attract to every other molecule that makes up the mass. The molecule at the extreme opposite end of the thick disc, wouldn't want to bend over itself and touch the molecules on the other end of the disc. Without a spherical center, the mass is evenly dispersed. There is just enough chance that the Earth would bend to be concave as to bend and make a near perfect sphere.
Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc. To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogical, and you still arrive at the same question, how was Earth formed in the first place? Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.
But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.
Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anythingYou forgot, in Newtonian gravity[1] that mass accelerate other mass, hence it force all particle with mass to accelerate towards the center of mass.
Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc.Irrelevant on something very massive and dense
To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogicalBut it doesn't fold itself "compressed" into a sphere is a more correct term. Also the Earth didn't form as a flat disc in the first place.
Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.A common creationist mistake to attempt disprove complicated stuff by the Big bang, the reason the Earth is denser in the center is because of buoyancy[2], the heavier iron will fall to the center of mass and the lighter element to the crust.
Regarding a conspiracy, who would really even know it besides the actual astronauts, and the owners at the very very very top?As i said, they would gain more than they lose if they tell the truth weather they knew the Earth was flat or just blindly accept it's spherical by older models while lying about space travel. Now, why would they want to lose more than they gain?
You could work at NASA applying the 12 years of higher education in geodesics and engineering you've obtained and do everything right by the book when preparing the trajectories for putting something into orbit.No, satellite trajectories are now prepared by computers automatically.
Also since it seems to be common knowledge that Boeing, Northrup Grumman and the several other contractors make up 90% of NASA, and they get trillions of dollars from our government in the form of military contracts etc. Don't you think they'd have a vested interest in doing whatever they're told as well? Wouldn't be hard to convince them to be "in on it," would it?This is too USA-centric for me to debate.
Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
Gravity forces everything into a shape that represents the lowest energy state. A cube has corners that have more potential energy than that sides. They would gradually erode to become rounded. There is a certain mass needed to have things become a sphere shape. Asteroids, comets and such can be angular because they are not large enough to experience the same effect as something as large as a planet.
And now before you will response with another question "And why does sphere represent the lowest energy state?" because spheres have no edges.
Any documented evidence or experiments to attest to this? Or is this purely hypothetical still? Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anything, even in pure logical standpoint it is the attraction of one molecule to another. If you have a disc with a certain thickness, any molecule attracts to any other molecule, at the inverse squared of the distance between them. The molecules on the far edges of a disc would attract to every other molecule that makes up the mass. The molecule at the extreme opposite end of the thick disc, wouldn't want to bend over itself and touch the molecules on the other end of the disc. Without a spherical center, the mass is evenly dispersed. There is just enough chance that the Earth would bend to be concave as to bend and make a near perfect sphere.
Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc. To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogical, and you still arrive at the same question, how was Earth formed in the first place? Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.