[PaulW]

Hello everybody  ,

Let me introduce myself. I am a french student living in Paris (I apologize for my english) and I have been studying maths for 5 years.
Some friends of mine told me about the FE theory and this site, and I think it is very intresting to see how people can have such different points of view.  I read a lot of things on the subject, and I would like to understand the logic behind this theory, and not only from the scientist perspective.

The main question is : why?

Why do you think we've been told this gigantic lie for hundreds of years ? I can see that it is related to the cold war at some point (from what I read at least), but RE theory existed way before (ex : Galileo), ... So, why do some people wanted us to beleive that the earth was round? What was the point?
Moreover, 100% of the greatest minds in the history beleived and prooved that the Earth is actually round. And we can not say that they are all corrupted since many of them are also well known because they took position against their (or any) government/army/etc. (ex : Einstein and the nuclear weapon, Henri Poincarré and the Dreyfus affair etc.). Or maybe are they just ALL wrong? Seems kind of hard to admit... But even if it is what FE theorists think, they must be able to prove it.

So, in concrete terms, what are the evidences that we have been told a lie for centuries, and what for? What is that all about? Does it have any sense or anything? I cannot even imagine the number of person that have to be corrupted in order to make people think that way, it seems really unlikely. But can you give me references of serious books or papers, with valid evidence that pretty much every one is lying?

Why this massive indoctrination anyway? I mean, I get when our governments lie to us when they play deeper games, but in this case, what is the point?

This was my first question.
My second question is more technical.
I will start with some little things that came up to me :

1) Considering the FE theory and the position of the sun, how come the other planets shine (mars, venuse etc.)? When obviously there are no suns above them (every one at home with a good telescope can see that). These planets do not produce light, they reflect it, then where does that light come from?

2) I know this question has been asked several times, but I did not understand the answers : why does the sun go down on the horizon? If the sun is above us, it never goes down on the horizon, pretty much obvious.

3) If their is a gigantic wall of ice all around the Earth, how come no one has ever seen it, or filmed it? How high is it? Why their is no footage of what's "outside the wall"?

And finally, every theory must be supported with evidence and with a serious mathematical background. I would like you to explain me the mathematical theory behind all this, the equations, that predict what you guys say. What kind of physic is it?

Thank you very much for those who will read the entire thing, and I'm looking forward to talking to you again!

Bye!

[Ghost of V]

There are several questions presented here. I don't really know where to start. Maybe ask one question at a time?

Also, I would advise you to read the FAQs. Here. And also browse the wiki a little bit. It should answer most of your question. If you are unsatisfied with any of the answers, then let us know and we'll discuss it.

[Tau]

For the first question:

Quite simply, it's what the evidence suggests. The majority of evidence suggests that the Earth is flat, and Flat Earth Theory explains the evidence for Round Earth Theory more satisfactorily than Round Earth Theory explains the evidence for Flat Earth Theory.

______


For the second part:

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET. They are higher than the sun and therefore reflect the light coming from it.

2) It's a combination of a perspective effect (as the sun gets farther away it appears to approach the horizon) and aetheric whirlpools, which are complicated (according to one model). I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

3) It's called Antarctica. It's literally just Antarctica. The idea of an 'ice wall' is somewhat misleading.

[Rama Set]

For the first question:

Quite simply, it's what the evidence suggests. The majority of evidence suggests that the Earth is flat, and Flat Earth Theory explains the evidence for Round Earth Theory more satisfactorily than Round Earth Theory explains the evidence for Flat Earth Theory.

______


For the second part:

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET. They are higher than the sun and therefore reflect the light coming from it.

2) It's a combination of a perspective effect (as the sun gets farther away it appears to approach the horizon) and aetheric whirlpools, which are complicated (according to one model). I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

3) It's called Antarctica. It's literally just Antarctica. The idea of an 'ice wall' is somewhat misleading.

Why should evidence for one theory have to fit another to have merit?

[markjo]

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET.

Huh?

[Tau]

For the first question:

Quite simply, it's what the evidence suggests. The majority of evidence suggests that the Earth is flat, and Flat Earth Theory explains the evidence for Round Earth Theory more satisfactorily than Round Earth Theory explains the evidence for Flat Earth Theory.

______


For the second part:

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET. They are higher than the sun and therefore reflect the light coming from it.

2) It's a combination of a perspective effect (as the sun gets farther away it appears to approach the horizon) and aetheric whirlpools, which are complicated (according to one model). I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

3) It's called Antarctica. It's literally just Antarctica. The idea of an 'ice wall' is somewhat misleading.

Why should evidence for one theory have to fit another to have merit?

No, it's the opposite. What RE'ers consider to be evidence for RET fits into FET, and therefore is not proper evidence against FET. Meanwhile, FET has evidence which cannot be explained away by globularists.

[Gulliver]

I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

Surely you could post this without prompting, but, yes, please do. Don't forget that you could get it published in the wiki and greatly increase FET's reputation--if it's consistent and clear.

No, it's the opposite. What RE'ers consider to be evidence for RET fits into FET, and therefore is not proper evidence against FET. Meanwhile, FET has evidence which cannot be explained away by globularists.

Again, please point to any such evidence. Surely FEers have already posted it and justified your claims.

[Rama Set]

For the first question:

Quite simply, it's what the evidence suggests. The majority of evidence suggests that the Earth is flat, and Flat Earth Theory explains the evidence for Round Earth Theory more satisfactorily than Round Earth Theory explains the evidence for Flat Earth Theory.

______


For the second part:

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET. They are higher than the sun and therefore reflect the light coming from it.

2) It's a combination of a perspective effect (as the sun gets farther away it appears to approach the horizon) and aetheric whirlpools, which are complicated (according to one model). I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

3) It's called Antarctica. It's literally just Antarctica. The idea of an 'ice wall' is somewhat misleading.

Why should evidence for one theory have to fit another to have merit?

No, it's the opposite. What RE'ers consider to be evidence for RET fits into FET, and therefore is not proper evidence against FET. Meanwhile, FET has evidence which cannot be explained away by globularists.

How does direct observation of a RE from space fit the FE hypothesis in the slightest   I mean, you guys had to conjure up a conspiracy to deal with that one.

[Ghost of V]

For the first question:

Quite simply, it's what the evidence suggests. The majority of evidence suggests that the Earth is flat, and Flat Earth Theory explains the evidence for Round Earth Theory more satisfactorily than Round Earth Theory explains the evidence for Flat Earth Theory.

______


For the second part:

1) Light from the planets most likely bounces off of the Sun, similarly to RET. They are higher than the sun and therefore reflect the light coming from it.

2) It's a combination of a perspective effect (as the sun gets farther away it appears to approach the horizon) and aetheric whirlpools, which are complicated (according to one model). I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

3) It's called Antarctica. It's literally just Antarctica. The idea of an 'ice wall' is somewhat misleading.

Why should evidence for one theory have to fit another to have merit?

No, it's the opposite. What RE'ers consider to be evidence for RET fits into FET, and therefore is not proper evidence against FET. Meanwhile, FET has evidence which cannot be explained away by globularists.

How does direct observation of a RE from space fit the FE hypothesis in the slightest   I mean, you guys had to conjure up a conspiracy to deal with that one.

That's not necessarily true. The round shape of the Earth when viewed from space could easily be caused by the aetheric warping effect. This distorts the image your eye sees considerably.

[Gulliver]

How does direct observation of a RE from space fit the FE hypothesis in the slightest   I mean, you guys had to conjure up a conspiracy to deal with that one.

That's not necessarily true. The round shape of the Earth when viewed from space could easily be caused by the aetheric warping effect. This distorts the image your eye sees considerably.

Since FET claims space travel (to orbit or beyond) to be impossible (and results faked by the alleged conspiracy), just how did "your eye" see a distorted image?

[Ghost of V]

Flat Earth theorists generally believe that but it is not part of the Flat Earth Theory by any means.

[Gulliver]

Flat Earth theorists generally believe that but it is not part of the Flat Earth Theory by any means.

Read the FAQ.

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains, and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves.

Since when is a "commonly accepted explanation" not part of the theory?

[Rama Set]

Since when is AWT also not hand-waving. I have asked for and also never seen the slightest bit of evidence for this idea.

[Tau]

I can go into more detail with regard to this theory if you require

Surely you could post this without prompting, but, yes, please do. Don't forget that you could get it published in the wiki and greatly increase FET's reputation--if it's consistent and clear.

You are not the OP. I wasn't talking to you.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since when is a "commonly accepted explanation" not part of the theory?

Congratulations, you've resorted to Young Earth Creationist rhetoric - a new personal low for you if I've ever seen one. I'm not even exaggerating - YECs really enjoy claiming that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution, for example.

Gulliver, face it. You post more often than you should. Due to that, your responses become increasingly poorly thought out. You focus on grammar and semantics (of which you have a very poor understanding) and attempt to nitpick other people's arguments without investing the time and energy required to nitpick them effectively. Take my honest advice and just slow down a bit.

[Tau]

Since when is a "commonly accepted explanation" not part of the theory?

Congratulations, you've resorted to Young Earth Creationist rhetoric - a new personal low for you if I've ever seen one. I'm not even exaggerating - YECs really enjoy claiming that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution, for example.

Gulliver, face it. You post more often than you should. Due to that, your responses become increasingly poorly thought out. You focus on grammar and semantics (of which you have a very poor understanding) and attempt to nitpick other people's arguments without investing the time and energy required to nitpick them effectively. Take my honest advice and just slow down a bit.

And maybe take a few moments to relax every once in a while. You strike me as a great ball of rage. I don't mean this offensively, I totally understand. I feel the same way when I'm talking to homopaths, for example. But it's probably a good idea to stay calm.

Since when is AWT also not hand-waving. I have asked for and also never seen the slightest bit of evidence for this idea.

Make a thread. I refuse to go into detail about a tangentially related topic at the request of anyone other than the OP. That's just forum etiquette.
______

Paul, don't let the interplay scare you away. It's just forum politics.

[Rama Set]

Since when is a "commonly accepted explanation" not part of the theory?

Congratulations, you've resorted to Young Earth Creationist rhetoric - a new personal low for you if I've ever seen one. I'm not even exaggerating - YECs really enjoy claiming that the Big Bang is part of the theory of evolution, for example.

Gulliver, face it. You post more often than you should. Due to that, your responses become increasingly poorly thought out. You focus on grammar and semantics (of which you have a very poor understanding) and attempt to nitpick other people's arguments without investing the time and energy required to nitpick them effectively. Take my honest advice and just slow down a bit.

And maybe take a few moments to relax every once in a while. You strike me as a great ball of rage. I don't mean this offensively, I totally understand. I feel the same way when I'm talking to homopaths, for example. But it's probably a good idea to stay calm.

Since when is AWT also not hand-waving. I have asked for and also never seen the slightest bit of evidence for this idea.

Make a thread. I refuse to go into detail about a tangentially related topic at the request of anyone other than the OP. That's just forum etiquette.

To be honest Tausami, I probably won't.  I have asked you numerous times and this is the most in-depth response I have received on the topic.  In fact, I have not seen a single shred of evidence for AWT in any thread ever.  I am pretty there is no evidence, otherwise it would likely be in the Wiki.

[Tau]

Then don't harp on it in every relevant thread, please.

I will say this, since this thread is pretty well derailed already and the OP seems to have disappeared:

If you'll recall from our conversation in the Coriolis thread, much of modern FET is speculation and hypothesis. We don't consider this to be a bad thing. This is certainly true in AWT; however, I am also actively researching the topic.

[Rama Set]

Then don't harp on it in every relevant thread, please.

I will say this, since this thread is pretty well derailed already and the OP seems to have disappeared:

If you'll recall from our conversation in the Coriolis thread, much of modern FET is speculation and hypothesis. We don't consider this to be a bad thing. This is certainly true in AWT; however, I am also actively researching the topic.

I am obviously going to harp on an explanation that has no substance.  If I claimed it was unicorns that made the sun come up, I would obviously be challenged on the veracity of the claim.  So although you may rightfully have called my netiquette in to question, I am also correct in saying that until you provide any piece of evidence for AWT, that it is not an explanation of anything and it has no place being brought up.

[Gulliver]

Then don't harp on it in every relevant thread, please.

I will say this, since this thread is pretty well derailed already and the OP seems to have disappeared:

If you'll recall from our conversation in the Coriolis thread, much of modern FET is speculation and hypothesis. We don't consider this to be a bad thing. This is certainly true in AWT; however, I am also actively researching the topic.

I am obviously going to harp on an explanation that has no substance.  If I claimed it was unicorns that made the sun come up, I would obviously be challenged on the veracity of the claim.  So although you may rightfully have called my netiquette in to question, I am also correct in saying that until you provide any piece of evidence for AWT, that it is not an explanation of anything and it has no place being brought up.

Well said.