1
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 20, 2014, 12:03:47 AM »
It tells me: What he thinks they are and the idea behind it.
It doesn't tell me why FE'er use Celestial Gears as an explanation to theories when there's no evidence. I thought maybe there might be real science behind your idea of celestial gears, but I suppose I was wrong. Anyways, this thread has proven to me that a) there is no science behind most of this drivel and b) most FE'ers are pedantic fools.
You do realize that Aristotle himself thought the Earth was round, right? So using examples from a book he wrote to validate your Flat Earth theory is backwards.
It doesn't tell me why FE'er use Celestial Gears as an explanation to theories when there's no evidence. I thought maybe there might be real science behind your idea of celestial gears, but I suppose I was wrong. Anyways, this thread has proven to me that a) there is no science behind most of this drivel and b) most FE'ers are pedantic fools.
You do realize that Aristotle himself thought the Earth was round, right? So using examples from a book he wrote to validate your Flat Earth theory is backwards.
3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 11:50:48 PM »
I'm asking: what are Celestial Gears? Not where the idea came from. That's where you misunderstood me.
4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 11:44:13 PM »So you are picking and choosing again to fit your confirmation bias.
Was that a question or a statement? If it was a question... the answer is: no. I am accepting some of his ideas, while rejecting others (mainly ones that claim there was a creator, because once again: there's no evidence). If I am picking and choosing, then so be it. I'm not going to sit here and argue whether or not your God created a Sun disc. It's pointless. Aristotle is not omnipotent, he is fallible. Try a new approach to your next post, please. You're tiring me. If you need to reread my previous posts to make some sort of sense, please go ahead and do so. Actually, I would recommend it. You're just embarrassing yourself and derailing real debates, this is a common motif for you, isn't it? (I put question marks at the end of questions, maybe you should too?)
5
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 11:25:27 PM »
His work on logic and the "Unmoved mover" are unrelated. Don't put words in my mouth.
6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 10:08:39 PM »
I've read that, and I'm aware of the concepts outlined within it. It reads like a religious text at times and is not a reliable source of information regarding science and how the universe works.
This line in particular gives credence to my view: "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world". Aristotle's vision was closer to intelligent design than real science.
This line in particular gives credence to my view: "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world". Aristotle's vision was closer to intelligent design than real science.
7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 09:33:57 PM »No one knows the answers to these questions?The very last time I began to tell you about celestial gears you told me to bring something more worthwhile to the table!
This is because you cited ancient murals as a reference. That's not a legitimate reference in my book, sorry Thork.
The reason I'm asking now is because I was wondering if anyone actually knew what Celestial Gears were, or if anyone had a scientific explanation for them. I can see now, from Dave's response, that there is no explanation. The fact that you cling to Flat Earth theory without any scientific evidence is mind boggling, really.
8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:37:32 PM »
Great question, what shines light on the moon? Obviously, in that diagram, the sun's rays do not reach the moon...
9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Some basic questions...
« on: April 19, 2014, 05:15:46 PM »
No one knows the answers to these questions?
10
Flat Earth Community / Some basic questions...
« on: April 18, 2014, 04:57:58 PM »
Hello all! This question is directed toward legitimate Flat Earthers only... In previous threads and on the FE wiki: I have read several things about "Celestial Gears". What are they? Are "Celestial Gears" just a metaphor for the inner workings of the universe in FE theory? Also, I know there is another thread about this, but maybe if I post this here someone will take it more seriously: What are the exact measurements of the Sun Disc?
If someone could answer these question I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you in advance.
If someone could answer these question I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you in advance.
11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:48:26 PM »
Goodnight, Thork. Maybe next time you can bring something to the table that's actually worthwhile. 
12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:23:49 PM »
Aristotle died in 322 BCE. While he did give us some insight and helped create the foundation science works with today, he was not always right and at times he was simply a raving madman. Anything you've said about "religious texts" or "ancients murals" I have disregarded and purged from my mind. Those examples are not productive to our debate, in fact they are actually counterproductive and derail our conversation (like now).
With that being said, I have disregarded most of your points (all of them) in your last two posts because of the reasons stated above. This is a scientific debate, not Sunday School. If you want to talk about God, go to church. If you want to talk about Sun discs and shadows, then please bring some science into the conversation. You answer questions with unverified statements presented as fact.
So far you have not answered my questions about gravity. Please refer to my previous post if you need a refresher, and please think carefully when you respond because I am this close to ignoring your responses completely.
With that being said, I have disregarded most of your points (all of them) in your last two posts because of the reasons stated above. This is a scientific debate, not Sunday School. If you want to talk about God, go to church. If you want to talk about Sun discs and shadows, then please bring some science into the conversation. You answer questions with unverified statements presented as fact.
So far you have not answered my questions about gravity. Please refer to my previous post if you need a refresher, and please think carefully when you respond because I am this close to ignoring your responses completely.
13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 10:30:06 PM »
Before I typed this debate I did not have a full grasp on the theories of Flat Earth. Now that I have a better understanding of the basics, I can see how some of my points are easily refutable (in theory). One basic question I still have however, is that you accept there's a horizon and that the sun "goes down", correct? Why does it appear as if the sun is "going down", when in your model of Earth, the sun is actually just moving out of view as it circles above Flat Earth? Optical illusion? Magic?
Also, Not every observable planet (to us) has life on it, but theoretically there are many planets in the universe with life on them and they too are most likely round. Since many of you have acknowledged the existence of other planets in this thread and you seem to agree that they are spherical (because they are observable to the naked eye with a telescope; its hard to refute).... then the method in which these other spherical planets were formed is in question under Flat Earth theory, and frankly causes a large hole in the FE theory. As we all know from basic Middle School science class: The force of gravity pulled molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical, of course planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin, but... for these to exist then gravity must exist. I have read in the FAQS that many of you stand by the theory that the Earth itself is moving upward at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). If gravity exists (since we know it does because of the existence of other spherical planets), then why is the Flat Earth not affected by gravity's influence? Once again, what makes Earth so special that it exists outside laws that obviously effect every other planet in our solar system?
Also, Not every observable planet (to us) has life on it, but theoretically there are many planets in the universe with life on them and they too are most likely round. Since many of you have acknowledged the existence of other planets in this thread and you seem to agree that they are spherical (because they are observable to the naked eye with a telescope; its hard to refute).... then the method in which these other spherical planets were formed is in question under Flat Earth theory, and frankly causes a large hole in the FE theory. As we all know from basic Middle School science class: The force of gravity pulled molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical, of course planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin, but... for these to exist then gravity must exist. I have read in the FAQS that many of you stand by the theory that the Earth itself is moving upward at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). If gravity exists (since we know it does because of the existence of other spherical planets), then why is the Flat Earth not affected by gravity's influence? Once again, what makes Earth so special that it exists outside laws that obviously effect every other planet in our solar system?
14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon landing conspiracy makes you look silly
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:40:01 PM »
"Blood Moon" is a nickname given to a total eclipse of the moon. There is nothing religious about it and it certainly doesn't prove that "God is real" or that "the moon is fake". Where are you getting these notions?
An eclipse is an obscuring of the light from one celestial body by the passage of another between it and the observer or between it and its source of illumination. It is an observable phenomenon with a scientific explanation, and the fact that eclipse exist is actually evidence that the Earth is round... since the shadow of Earth on the moon is round.
An eclipse is an obscuring of the light from one celestial body by the passage of another between it and the observer or between it and its source of illumination. It is an observable phenomenon with a scientific explanation, and the fact that eclipse exist is actually evidence that the Earth is round... since the shadow of Earth on the moon is round.
15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:35:04 PM »
I had no idea that you were female and in the sciences like myself. I may have overreacted to your post and I am sorry for that. I hope that you can forgive my outburst and that we can get on with the discussion.
However, I have not changed my opinion on this topic and I find the idea of a designer to be silly and unprovable. Like I said in my previous posts: I normally don't engage in discussion about theories that have no basis in reality and no evidence behind them, especially ones that roam into the realm of science-fiction. However, I will indulge myself this one time because your claims are interesting to say the least.
How does an infinite flat plane that loops back onto itself work, exactly? Do you have any science or diagrams to help me better understand your theory?
However, I have not changed my opinion on this topic and I find the idea of a designer to be silly and unprovable. Like I said in my previous posts: I normally don't engage in discussion about theories that have no basis in reality and no evidence behind them, especially ones that roam into the realm of science-fiction. However, I will indulge myself this one time because your claims are interesting to say the least.
How does an infinite flat plane that loops back onto itself work, exactly? Do you have any science or diagrams to help me better understand your theory?
16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:08:13 PM »It may be worth pointing out that Intelligent Design does not require a deity, merely sufficient technological advancement to perform deeds we attribute to deities.
You're theorizing without evidence. What's the point of discussing something that you couldn't possibly prove in this lifetime? I'd rather focus on real debate, thank you.
17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 16, 2014, 05:42:47 PM »What makes earth special? I don't know the answer to that for sure. I'm sort of in the minority here because I don't discount "deliberately engineered" as a rationale for why the earth (and humanity) is here at all - and please don't confuse that with creationism or "intelligent design," because I'm not a theist.
I'm not confused by your views being "creationism" or "intelligent design" because that's exactly what they are: creationism & intelligent design. This website is supposed to be a channel for scientific debate and you just answered my question with: "Maybe a creator did it". You obviously have a problem with people calling your views "creationism", if that's the case then maybe you should switch to a viewpoint that actually makes sense? Maybe that would solve your cognitive dissonance.
I'm sorry, but that's a turn off for me. What you just did was admit that you don't know the answer to any of my questions, and of course... that's fine, but at least admit it like a man. Don't beat around the bush and expect me to be strung along just because I'm a woman.
I would post more examples of how the Earth is round, but I'll wait until someone can refute my original points, because no one has done so as of yet.
18
Flat Earth Community / Friendly discussion about "Flat Earth Theory"
« on: April 15, 2014, 11:20:25 PM »
Hello all!
I heard about your site from one of my students that I teach at Harvard. It's all very interesting! I am a planetary scientist as you can probably tell from my signature. That means that I study planets, not only the curvature of planets, but also the possibility of extraterrestrial life on other planets. I have devoted my whole life to this science and I currently teach it at Harvard. Not to brag, but I have a PHd in Education and teach Round Earth theory for a living, for the most part.
It surprises me that people still cling to the old fashioned notion that the Earth is flat when there is so much evidence to the contrary. In the following few paragraphs I will detail some points that provide clear evidence that the Earth is indeed round.
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
Anyways, I hope that this promotes some real serious debate and that some of you will step away from the FE theory and come back to the Dark side (Haha), we do have cookies!
I heard about your site from one of my students that I teach at Harvard. It's all very interesting! I am a planetary scientist as you can probably tell from my signature. That means that I study planets, not only the curvature of planets, but also the possibility of extraterrestrial life on other planets. I have devoted my whole life to this science and I currently teach it at Harvard. Not to brag, but I have a PHd in Education and teach Round Earth theory for a living, for the most part.
It surprises me that people still cling to the old fashioned notion that the Earth is flat when there is so much evidence to the contrary. In the following few paragraphs I will detail some points that provide clear evidence that the Earth is indeed round.
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
Anyways, I hope that this promotes some real serious debate and that some of you will step away from the FE theory and come back to the Dark side (Haha), we do have cookies!
Pages: [1]