1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasons for believing the Earth is round

« on: April 09, 2015, 05:35:12 PM »

How many flat Earthers have you spoken to?

you people are the first, but i feel that is somewhat irrelevent.

I think you misinterpreted what i was asking. I was trying to ask if the aether was acting directly on us. I think I managed to get what you meant anyway. so you mean to say The aether is not acting on us; it is acting only on the earth, and the earth is blocking the aether so that we don't experience weightlessness?

Imagine you're in a river, shielding yourself from the current with a big wooden plank. The current acts on the plank, which in turn acts on you.

Similarly here, the aetheric wind doesn't act on you directly because the Earth is in the way.

Thanks that makes sense.

I believe that the Earth blocks most, but not all, of this force from reaching us.  A small amount permeates through the Earth and does act on us, but in a very subtle and almost imperceptible way.  This is why things have a slightly different amount of weight at different locations across the plane.

That also makes sense. but that still doesn't explain the atraction between small objects observed in cavendish's experiment, and i've still not heard the original reason that suggests that aether exists.

Wulf's point above is valid - what is the original evidence for the aether / aetheric wind? It seems to be, as herewegoround is suggesting in his most recent post, that FE folks start from the presumption that the earth is flat (because hey, look our your window, it's pretty flat...), and then need to invent new natural processes for which we have no evidence to explain the original presumption....whereas, given the evidence from observations as we have them (and again, herewegoround laid them out a number of them pretty clearly at the beginning of this thread), everything seems to suggests that the earth is round.

Not to paint with a broad brush, but is it possible FE folks that maybe you are all just so committed to being contrarian - which, granted, is an important role in a free thinking society - that you're not really looking at the very clear and obvious truth? I mean, I just cannot see any way that you guys truly believe this stuff, so I keep coming back to the idea that this whole entire website must just be an attempt to mess with people...

Also, I'd love to hear a response to the Verrazzano bridge point!

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasons for believing the Earth is round

« on: April 09, 2015, 12:57:19 AM »

Gotcha, luminferfous aether, different from FET aether. But still, since the FET aether is a medium through which light is (according to you in this thread) is bent/distorted, wouldn't the same effects on the light from the stars and other planets be noticeable?

Vauxhall, from earlier, herewegoaround has as one of his points that the Verrazano-Narrows bridge is built to account for the curvature of the earth, to which you replied "no it isn't." Yet, here's a snippet from the wikipedia article on the bridge, which apparently comes from information from the US Dept. of Transportation (I did not follow up on this, but if the point needs confirming, I'd be happy to look into it.)

"Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other." (Wikipedia)

Is the engineering on this bridge not proof of the earth's curvature? I think this is probably the major issue facing your belief system, that so much of what is done in modern science and engineering relies on the knowledge and truth that the earth is round. Navigation, engineering on the larger scale, satellites technology (do you content that GPS navigation systems are part of the conspiracy???)... the list, I assume, goes on for a while...

And then there's the glaring question: why would anybody cover this up? At least with the moon landing, it's obvious that if it were a hoax (and let me say emphatically that I rest assured that it was not), it would be distinctly embarrassing for the US gov. to admit that they'd not really won the space race, so the need for a government cover-up seems plausible...but science is doing amazing things these days, and it just strikes me as beyond reason that there would not be more vocal support for the FET theory?

So again, come on - this all has to be a joke, right? This all exists just to elicit responses from people like me, doesn't it? Can you address any of the issues I've brought up in a serious way?

Good catch by the way, I wasn't sure if I'd just come off as a skeptic of martian life! (Which, I suppose, I am)

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasons for believing the Earth is round

« on: April 08, 2015, 09:32:21 PM »

Phew...

I've been a reader here for a while, but just recently decided to post a bit.  I've been interested in finding some concrete ideas that support the notion of a flat earth, but I feel that there's really a dearth of actual evidence. As was just implied by Throwaway Account, it feels like supporters of FET (in this thread, jroa and Vauxhall specifically) often refer people back to the wiki, but I've been disappointed by the explanations I've found there. What I (and other like herewegoaround) would like are some clear arguments (or links to clear arguments) about the specific points brought up.

Relevant to this thread, the notion of the aether just seems a little fantastical...granted, it was a well accepted idea in classical physics through the 19th century, but isn't it true that the Michelson-Morley experiments pretty well indicated that such a medium does not exist?

Also, can any FET supporters provide an answer to the point posed by herewegoaround and re-posted by Throwaway Account above? (Point 3. originally posted by herewegoaround)

Also, this may be a little silly to get into, but jroa: you have an gif on your signature that says "Which model would you choose to represent the earth if you were in second grade: a.) a pancake or b.) an orange. The correct answer is a.)"

Doesn't this seem just a little presumptuous? How can you say what a hypothetical second grader would choose? And beyond that, what would it matter - should the intuitive powers of a second grader be our basis for determining ultimate truths? (I mean, children are wonderful, but...)

Finally (and forgive me for this post having multiple questions), I just want to ask: are most of you FET supporters just the internet's greatest trolls? Or do you genuinely believe the evidence suggests that the most parsimonious explanation for the observable character of the earth and its surroundings is that the planet is flat?