1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is the atmosphere held?

« on: February 03, 2016, 03:37:19 PM »

I personally find this flat earth hypothesis ridiculous and stupid, but I do have one question I would like answered.

If you find the flat earth theory stupid why are you asking such stupid questions?

Maybe someone on this forum will be stupid enough to answer your stupid question.

At start all hypothesis that change our whole perception of the reality sound as madness so it's not that stupid to ask questions to transform that aparent madness into something possible, this RE'er may not be polite but developing new knowledge nowadays is about finding truth our of what seems madness, so plese, do not evade the topic, since your coment doesn't belong to the matter discussed it's most likely to be spam.

From my point of view the UA is not real, and clearly the notion of gravity is a better explanation for many more fenomena, so you may be right assuming that it's nonsense; also, FE'ers should be reminded that the use of Occam's Razor to justify FE model is wrong, the notions of gravity make matters much simpler, and others much difficult but since Occam's Razor doesn't really say that the simplest theorie is the true one we have to consider gravity notions true since they give a much better explanation to most of fenomena.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 03, 2016, 03:27:00 PM »

PD: stop evading my questions or at least say that you don't have an answer, it's quite unpolite to ignore an ignorant when your society claims to have some answers about how our world really works, thanks for your time.

Why?
You are a guest here (I am as well) and many, many, many people asked the same questions over and over again. Mostly with a mind full of prejudice and biased opinions about the 'stupid' idea that the earth is not a spinning flying ball.

Please keep also in mind that most flat-earthers on this forum are not trying to prosetylize or evangalize the Flat Earth Theory.
If you are interested there is a lot of information (proposed ideas and explanations) available here, on the internet and youtube. Don't forget to do your own thinking

First of all, I don't think the FET is stupid, as I see it it's just another explanation that some people came up with as scientists do before proving their thinkings to stablish theories; but nowadays you can't just say science and it's suporters form a conspiracy against the true nature of earth, you first have to explain how many things work in that model and since thd internet just gives conspiranoic assumptions without really proving anything I have to come here for more accurate answers; and I do my own thinking but your model is in conflict with so many fenomena that trying to figure out all by myself is just overwhelming.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 03, 2016, 01:44:23 PM »

That stills not proving why we can see a full half red moon,

You first asked for an explanation for many things, now you are demanding proof for one little bit.

Start slow, you have already got emotional and appear to already have your mind made up.

Proof is measurable in so many different ways.

Some people have a theory that the solar eclipse is actually caused by another heavenly body. Called the "black sun".

The red moon may be another seperate heavenly body as well.

There may very well be 2 suns.

Lots of theories. Not just one.

And the wiki is not a complete consensus, and this community admits its outdated. But still, these are just ideas and theories.

Not all theories are provable, some will never be until we die perhaps.

Consider for a moment how you opened this discussion...

Flat earthers are all atheist and don't believe in a god....

Let me try the reverse...

Round earthers are all misguided Christians.

See? Not very nice is it?

So in short you could be a little more respectable in how you come across.

Remember you came here asking questions,  Not the other way around.

Well, I'm gonna start from the end. I actually never said you are all atheists (it will be awesome and would grant all of you much more credibility); and I am being much more respectable that the ones that refuse answering my questions, aso, if you read my posts you would see that i am asking for answer to all my questions and that's perfectly compatible with making a coment about what others said before, Tom Bishop for example.

About your so called theories, actually if there were 2 suns all of us will be actually dead because of the radiation, i  those days our atmosphere has many problems with 1 sun due to climate change and its repercusion on 03 layer, so the two suns theorie only makes matters more complicated, and with that red moon, why don't we see it more often and just twice or mabey three times a year; not to talk about the unseen consequenced it would have in our seas.

Tom Bishop, as the other FE'er said, that wiki is outdated so please stop evading the subjects and both of you answer my initiall questions, thanks.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 02, 2016, 10:19:26 PM »

Your FAQ page illustrating how the sun and moon "orbit" the earth

Your representation in the wiki of the flat earth and the celestial objects say so; although its true you have different representations beacuse you (FE) don't seem to have common opinion in many subjects such as the existance of a god.

PD: I would like you to answer my questions and not make more to evade the subject, please; thanks.

And what did you two see in the FAQ/Wiki indicating that all celestial bodies remained on a single plane?

After reading the Cosmos -> Moon -> Lunar Eclispe section in the Wiki I was educated to see that Lunar Eclipse is caused by a body moving 5°10' out of tandem to the sun's orbital plane.

That stills not proving why we can see a full half red moon, the peculiar orbit of that Shadow object you talk about makes only possible to to see fraction of the half red moon, in this model it stills impossible for us to see it from our point of view.

PD: stop evading my questions or at least say that you don't have an answer, it's quite unpolite to ignore an ignorant when your society claims to have some answers about how our world really works, thanks for your time.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 02, 2016, 07:13:38 PM »

Well, I've been thinking for a while and i don't understand some things:

Solar eclipses, if all the celestial objects we observe are above the disc at the same distance from it how is it possible that solar eclipses occur, if everything in the sky is in a single plain then nothing can get between the earth and the Sun so solar eclipses should never take place.

Who said it was a single plane?

Your representation in the wiki of the flat earth and the celestial objects say so; although its true you have different representations beacuse you (FE) don't seem to have common opinion in many subjects such as the existance of a god.

PD: I would like you to answer my questions and not make more to evade the subject, please; thanks.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 01, 2016, 12:48:12 PM »

Well, I've been thinking for a while and i don't understand some things:

Solar eclipses, if all the celestial objects we observe are above the disc at the same distance from it how is it possible that solar eclipses occur, if everything in the sky is in a single plain then nothing can get between the earth and the Sun so solar eclipses should never take place. Same with lunar eclipses, for them to another object should be between the sun and the moon but it lacks of explanation for the whole red moon we observe in some lunar eclipses, it's not possible that the whole moon turns red due to the eclipse since the objects involved are in the same plain and therefore it could only be half red.

Now with the Sun, if we accept that the energy produced by a chemical reaction is directly proportional to the mass involved it makes no sense that the Sun radiates high energy radiation with that given mass and size by FET, in such conditions the hydrogen fusion will never take place.

Another question I have is how the formation of either the Earth and the celestial objects works without the notions of gravity.

And there's a problem that has been bothering me, i have some drones that I've been given by my family the last Christmas and when i set them to stand in the air without moving for a long time I found them moved, since I repeated this by observing it and checking that no wind or other effects move the drone and also they don't move spontaneously without my command, what does it mean? The Earth is stationary therefore and object subjected to no lateral forces should stay on its position only moving up and down if posible.

PD: Sorry ofr my bad English.

Edit: when i refered to a whole red moon i meant from our pesrpective because obviously in a plain only half moon can turn red due to an eclipse so that we observe the full red half or a portion of it, sorry for that mistake.