| phenomenon | round earth | flat earth |
| sun | an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe | a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown |
| sunrise/set | earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed | sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation |
| solar eclipse | moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon | undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics |
| lunar eclipse | earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon | undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics |
| shape of earth | spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity | variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity |
| shape of sun/moon/planets | spherical | can't agree on spherical or flat |
| other stars | similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities | tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours |
| other galaxies | similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence | tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours |
| formation of earth and solar system | condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum | unknown, maybe god |
| sinking ship effect | through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction | trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky |
| clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset | at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets | unexplained |
| satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights | there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye | satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined |
| north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day | an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey | a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics[/red], farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way[/red] |
| south celestial pole | same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere | like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location |
| why do we see the same face of the moon | like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month | unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies |
| moon phases | unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth | moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete |
| moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky | basic orbital mechanics predicts this | unexplained |
| rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere | corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth | unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence |
| things experimentally weigh less high on mountains | slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass | chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction |
| shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment | delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth | undefined |
| nasa photos | hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics | every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop") |
| strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years | round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago | unexplained |
| seasons | easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun | spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics |
| tides | gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation | sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable |
| midnight sun in antactic circle | same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit | doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions |
You are about to get loads and loads of shit from TB, you do realise that, don;t you? I however understand and agree with your post on the most part.
however, it's dawning on me that this forum is absolutely nothing more than a colossal waste of time.
cpt_bthimes
WOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.Quotecpt_bthimes
All that and you couldn't reference one piece of experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe? I'll stop posting and leave this forum forever once you guys give me that.
You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
WOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....Oh why the hell am I saying this? You will just ignore the point, discredit, say 'photos aren't evidence,' or say '_____ isn't the earth.'QuoteWOW! You totally avoided the topic completely! Btw, I have prof of a round earth, but since you aren't coming back I won't waist my time.
What? You have prof of a Round Earth?
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix01.jpg)
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix02.jpg)
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix04.jpg)
All the proof I'll ever need.
Taken this month.
All the proof I'll ever need.
Taken this month.
Photoshop hax, lol. ::)Quote
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix01.jpg)
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix02.jpg)
(http://sean.milkncookies.net/img/NASApix04.jpg)
Taken this month.
Why thank you. Darth Bishop created my avatar. As for the rest of the post, yeah, very good views. Oh, Tom Bullshit, please reply.All the proof I'll ever need.
Taken this month.
kudos for your name and avatar. But yea beautiful eh? Maybe if Tom was one of those guys he would be less of a dumbshit.
http://web2.kwangju.ac.kr/~tak/cosmos/planets/Earth-Globe.jpg
Taken this month.
Let's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....
So TomB can you explain why tides, eclipses, moon phases, and why we always see the same side of the moon? And if the moon is only a couple thousand miles above the earth why is it that we cannot see the surface of it clearly with telescopes that can focus in on things that are hundreds of thousands of miles away?
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! You ignored everything! I am beginning to loss it now just like cpt. Tom Bullshit! I want YOU to present YOUR experiments you keep telling us. I want YOU to show us photos of a Flat Earth. I want YOU to get out of your shell and start debating and contradict our model. It is us that is calling you out. YOU MUST PRESENT YOUR FACTS!QuoteLet's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....
And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.
NASA propaganda.Wrong.
NASA propaganda.Wrong.
And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.Wrong.
You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.Looks like your keyboard only has two keys.
Yeah, B and S.NASA propaganda.Wrong.NASA propaganda.Wrong.And none of which involve controlled experiments in the least.Wrong.You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.Looks like your keyboard only has two keys.
I'll stop posting and leave this forum forever once you guys give me that.:o
I think he's ignoring this post for some reason. Is it possible that he's out of bull answers?
http://web2.kwangju.ac.kr/~tak/cosmos/planets/Earth-Globe.jpg
NASA propaganda.QuoteTaken this month.
NASA propaganda.QuoteLet's see; Greeks, Galileo, NASA, photos, sky divers, stratosphere sky divers, sinking ships, renaissance explorers, flight paths, books, rockets....
And none of which involves controlled experiments in the least.QuoteSo TomB can you explain why tides, eclipses, moon phases, and why we always see the same side of the moon? And if the moon is only a couple thousand miles above the earth why is it that we cannot see the surface of it clearly with telescopes that can focus in on things that are hundreds of thousands of miles away?
You came here and sought us out. We did not seek you out. Therefore the onus is on you to demonstrate that your hypothetical model of the earth is correct.
after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.
where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.
any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.
phenomenon round earth flat earth sun an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universea sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown sunrise/set earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observedsun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation solar eclipse moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moonundefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics lunar eclipse earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moonundefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics shape of earth spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravityvariously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity shape of sun/moon/planets sphericalcan't agree on spherical or flat other stars similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densitiestiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours other galaxies similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidencetiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours formation of earth and solar system condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentumunknown, maybe god sinking ship effect through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refractiontrick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it setsunexplained satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eyesatellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obeya star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics, farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way south celestial pole same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemispherelike north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location why do we see the same face of the moon like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar monthunexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies moon phases unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earthmoon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky basic orbital mechanics predicts thisunexplained rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere corilois effect as result of a rotating round earthunexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence things experimentally weigh less high on mountains slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's masschemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earthundefined nasa photos hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanicsevery single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop") strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades agounexplained seasons easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sunspiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics tides gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotationsloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable midnight sun in antactic circle same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbitdoesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions
after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.
where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.
any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.
God is greater than science.
Oh yes, putting a strike-through on each point for the RE TOTALLY means it isn't relevant anymore. Why didn't the rest of the FE'ers think of that?! They could have won this argument long ago and convinced us all how stupid we've been!
What makes you think the Bible has anything to do with our theory? ???
God is greater than science.
... We FE'ers can prove the earth is flat with god. so there...Nice. I'm sure God loves being associated with this comment. Especially the part I edited out.
Ok, but did he leave you instructions on the earth's configuration?
From the names alone you should come to the conclusion that they are trolls. ::)
after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.
where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.
any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.
phenomenon round earth flat earth sun an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown sunrise/set earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation solar eclipse moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics lunar eclipse earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics shape of earth spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity shape of sun/moon/planets spherical can't agree on spherical or flat other stars similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours other galaxies similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours formation of earth and solar system condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum unknown, maybe god sinking ship effect through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets unexplained satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics[/red], farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way[/red] south celestial pole same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location why do we see the same face of the moon like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies moon phases unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky basic orbital mechanics predicts this unexplained rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence things experimentally weigh less high on mountains slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth undefined nasa photos hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop") strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago unexplained seasons easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics tides gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable midnight sun in antactic circle same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions
since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!No, they couldn't.
FErs claim that the effect would NOT be reversed south of the equator.
Maybe Ill go to the giant "ice sheets" for my holiday next year. Ill take photos as well. Though of cause they will be fake, just like those beautiful NASA photographs posted earlier in the thread ;-)
Maybe Ill go to the giant "ice sheets" for my holiday next year. Ill take photos as well. Though of cause they will be fake, just like those beautiful NASA photographs posted earlier in the thread ;-)
Since when does the FET claim that ice shelves don't exist?
since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!No, they couldn't.
since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!No, they couldn't.
Actually they could perform it, but it would probably yield a null result.
However, one could perform an experiment with a large pendulum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum), repeated above and below the equator. That would support a rotating earth hypothesis.
Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?
Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?The earth rotates.
Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?The earth rotates.
Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?The earth rotates.
Given that the swinging pendulum rotates spontaneously in opposite ways above any below the equator, would this test prove the earth is round? If not, why not?
oh boy...I can't believe these morons are still pulling people into arguing their flat earth bullshit.
Let me put it this way...arguing with these people is like playing in the special olympics..even if you win, you're still retarded. The best way to deal with these world class idiots is to not play their game. That is the true motivation of people like this. The argument doesn't matter...that they can get you to buy into the argument is what these leeches feed off of. Trolls, one and all!!!
Definitely a nice layout of the facts (and FE non-facts) in the beginning of this thread, though.
quoted for irony, troll.
quoted for irony, troll.
Wow, are you dumb. Go back and re-read my post SLOWLY. Note how I did not place any argument whatsoever. Now go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll and read that SLOWLY. I have not tried to instigate any arguments. I am simply pointing out that the FE'ers are complete and total morons. On the bright side, you have elevated yourself to the top of that particular group.
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1] A similar individual is an Internet Thug."
Your insults to our community are troll-like comments, intentionally made to bait people into argue, or insult back.
Remind me how you're not a troll?
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1] A similar individual is an Internet Thug."
Your insults to our community are troll-like comments, intentionally made to bait people into argue, or insult back.
Remind me how you're not a troll?
This site seeks to instigate an argument...not discussion like the FE'ers like to constantly say. You people feed on a reaction that you know people will have when you tell them that you think the earth is flat...lets just call it the "WTF???" factor. This site uses that factor to bring people in and get them arguing with all of the blatant bullshit that you post here. While I do call the FEers idiots and morons, I'm not just calling names here. If you go and look up the definitions of those words, that is exactly how I classify the FEers.
So, actually, I am just stating my opinion that you and yours are complete morons and I refuse to argue your FE crap because I just don't see the point in arguing with someone who thinks the earth is flat.
And yet, here you are, arguing with someone you believe thinks the earth is flat...
Kind of ironic, really.
No one asked you to register. No one asked you to be abusive. You did these things, thus you are a troll.
And yet, here you are, arguing with someone you believe thinks the earth is flat...
Kind of ironic, really.
No one asked you to register. No one asked you to be abusive. You did these things, thus you are a troll.
Wrong again. I am not arguing any point here. If me saying that I think anyone who wants to argue the FE theory is an idiot or a moron offends of the FEers, I would say lets do a poll outside of this forum and see just how many of the normal people out there also think that the FEers are just plain dumb. I am very willing to just let the majority speak here. I'm pretty sure it would be about 98% of the whole fucking world that would be calling the FEers dumb at that point.
I am not arguing here. I am perfectly secure with my own knowledge of things are, but I will say when I think something or someone is just plain stupid.
Yet you are still a troll. You're deliberately trying to incite a response from me.HAHAHA...yes, as a matter of fact I know that most of the FEers don't actually believe the theory that they are arguing. It just makes it that much more pathetic and amusing to me. Now, if you please, I don't want to miss the rest of the parade, so stop bothering me.
So here it is....
How many people on this forum do you think actually believe in the FE theory? We spend most of our time laughing at people like you who missed the point.
Yet you are still a troll. You're deliberately trying to incite a response from me.HAHAHA...yes, as a matter of fact I know that most of the FEers don't actually believe the theory that they are arguing. It just makes it that much more pathetic and amusing to me. Now, if you please, I don't want to miss the rest of the parade, so stop bothering me.
So here it is....
How many people on this forum do you think actually believe in the FE theory? We spend most of our time laughing at people like you who missed the point.
It amuses me that you willingly go to a website that you think is stupid.
Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose...
So, actually, I am just stating my opinion that you and yours are complete morons and I refuse to argue your FE crap because I just don't see the point in arguing with someone who thinks the earth is flat.Good, then you won't mind being banned.
So, actually, I am just stating my opinion that you and yours are complete morons and I refuse to argue your FE crap because I just don't see the point in arguing with someone who thinks the earth is flat.Good, then you won't mind being banned.
Hmm which am I? Freak or normal?
Hmm which am I? Freak or normal?
If you have to ask the answer should be obvious.
Hmm which am I? Freak or normal?
If you have to ask the answer should be obvious.
There wasn't an option for supercool
after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.
where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.
any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.
phenomenon round earth flat earth sun an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown sunrise/set earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation solar eclipse moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics lunar eclipse earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics shape of earth spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity shape of sun/moon/planets spherical can't agree on spherical or flat other stars similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours other galaxies similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours formation of earth and solar system condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum unknown, maybe god sinking ship effect through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets unexplained satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics[/red], farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way[/red] south celestial pole same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location why do we see the same face of the moon like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies moon phases unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky basic orbital mechanics predicts this unexplained rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence things experimentally weigh less high on mountains slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth undefined nasa photos hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop") strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago unexplained seasons easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics tides gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable midnight sun in antactic circle same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions
The answer is that all pendulums are actually made by the Conspiracy, and thus programmed to give out false results.
@OP. Most of that list is overly-biased. Many items in that list targetting FE are problems in RE too. And in my time reading the forums, I don't see one item there that FE'ers haven't already explained.
3/10. Nice formatting, did make things easier to read.
@OP. Most of that list is overly-biased. Many items in that list targetting FE are problems in RE too. And in my time reading the forums, I don't see one item there that FE'ers haven't already explained.
3/10. Nice formatting, did make things easier to read.
What problems with FE carry over to RE? And I think the list is meant to show how valid the theory is. (credit for this nice work goes to cpt_bthimes)
@OP. Most of that list is overly-biased. Many items in that list targetting FE are problems in RE too. And in my time reading the forums, I don't see one item there that FE'ers haven't already explained.
3/10. Nice formatting, did make things easier to read.
What problems with FE carry over to RE? And I think the list is meant to show how valid the theory is. (credit for this nice work goes to cpt_bthimes)
Er, are you serious? The "issues" in this chart are all perfectly understood in conventional science. However there are enough question marks on the FE side to make a lifetime supply of suits for Matthew Lesko. Of course it's kind of a waste of time even posting here anymore because most of the FE's are fakers and so not really worth the time to "discuss" this with.
| phenomenon | round earth | flat earth |
| sun | a fantastically gigantic ball of gas powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe [that made me giggle] | Probably a sphere, 32 miles in diameter, powered by fusion but burning at a slower rate than expected due to its incredible mass, orbiting on a plane roughly parallel to the earth's around a fixed point which is above the approximate center of the earth. |
| sunrise/set | an optical illusion makes it appear to visibly rise from and set below the horizon due to the earth's revolving around the sun. | An optical illusion makes it appear to visibly rise from and set below the horizon; a glare effect causes its apparent size to stay roughly the same as it moves across the sky. |
| solar eclipse | moon passes between the earth and the sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon | Moon passes between the earth and sun as predicted in advance by well-established mathematical equations; only happens during new moon (as if that's somehow relevant). |
| lunar eclipse | earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon | Shadow object passes between the moon and earth as predicted in advance by mathematical equations; only happens during full moon (when has an FEer ever claimed otherwise?). |
| shape of earth | spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravitation | Flat, theoretically finite mass (though we can never be sure unless we were to see the edge of the earth) and gravitation (whatever exactly you mean by that). |
| shape of sun/moon/planets | spherical | Probably spherical, but since we've never observed one up close we can't really be sure (although rotation is certainly an observable property of some planets with a powerful telescope, making them in all likelihood spherical). |
| other stars | similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities | Small motes of chemical energy in a layer above the earth rotating around the same barycenter as the sun. They are fixed in place somehow so that they all make a rotation once every 24 hours. |
| other galaxies | similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence | Pretty much the same explanation as the stars. They may be larger and on a higher layer. Complies with observational evidence. |
| formation of earth and solar system | condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum | The earth condensed out of gas and dust, but somehow due to its mass (which is much larger than anything else in the observable universe) developed an extremely strong dark energy field, causing upward acceleration and ended up flat. The planets simply formed out of gas and dust, developing their own much weaker dark energy fields. |
| sinking ship effect | through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction | A trick of perspective caused by obstructions in the foreground progressively obscuring the boat from the bottom up, combined with the density of the atmosphere which causes objects to be obscurer the further away they are. |
| clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset | at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets | Optical illusion; mechanism unknown. |
| satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights | there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye | Strattelites, a fact well protected by the conspiracy. |
| north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day | an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey | The stars are somehow fixed in place, probably in the same layer, so that they all complete their orbit in the same amount of time. Requires no "magical physics" (lol). |
| south celestial pole | same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere | like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; Like the north, its relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in the southern hemisphere (Why wouldn't it be? Isn't that what's observed?). |
| why do we see the same face of the moon | like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month | It... just doesn't rotate. |
| moon phases | unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth | Unexplained (hey, we don't have all the answers, but who does?). |
| moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky | basic orbital mechanics predicts this [That's an answer?] | Optical illusion explained by glare (see: sun). |
| rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere | corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth | Coriolis Effect as result of celestial gears. |
| things experimentally weigh less high on mountains. | slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass | Stars exert slight gravitation on objects on earth that is stronger the higher up the object is. |
| shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment | delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth | Again, unknown. |
| nasa photos | hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics | Every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered using secret technology that the public did not know about. |
| strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years | round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago | They move in unusual but predictable patterns, probably accelerated by their own much smaller dark energy fields. |
| seasons | easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun | Slight tilting of the sun's orbit above the earth. The physics, obviously, must be interpreted differently from a flat earth perspective. |
| tides | gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation | Pretty much unexplained (the prevailing theory is a wobbling of the earth; also possibly an "antimoon" beneath the earth affecting things as the moon above the earth does), but perfectly predictable. |
| midnight sun in antactic circle | same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit | Optical illusion caused by reflection of the sun off ice crystals. |
add different hours of sunlight, that was never answered
the circular rotation that's is impossible and the change in altitude after the FAQ says it is 3000 miles and nothing about change in altitude, that 1 ?
The circular rotation is impossible?
the circular rotation that's is impossible and the change in altitude after the FAQ says it is 3000 miles and nothing about change in altitude, that 1 ?
The circular rotation is impossible?
As for the FAQ omittance, it's been long-stated that the FAQ is outdated and needs an update. Whether or not something is listed in the FAQ doesn't change the explanation's possibility.
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.
alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.
exactly. which is why fe'ers and some re'ers should excercise a little more restraint before reflexively declaring to noobs: "read the faq", about questions that either are not addressed, or more often, not up to date. or better yet, the fe'ers should get off their lazy arses and update it to reflect their current hypotheses.
or give me the damn keys to it, i'll update it. ;-)
But as stated many times, it's outdated and needs work.alot in the FAQ is wrong, simple as. and alot of the ideas have been changed because they have been proven wrong.
exactly. which is why fe'ers and some re'ers should excercise a little more restraint before reflexively declaring to noobs: "read the faq", about questions that either are not addressed, or more often, not up to date. or better yet, the fe'ers should get off their lazy arses and update it to reflect their current hypotheses.
or give me the damn keys to it, i'll update it. ;-)
I never tell noobs to read the faq unless it's extremely obvious by their post that they haven't (and this is often a very easy thing to judge).
says assrape (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1198.msg331767#msg331767) with 6,000 posts. there is nothing in the forum rules or common netiquette that says fresher members can't engage themselves in debates you have tried and failed to win thousands of times before. otherwise this site would grow stale. not what fes wants. and you would have nowhere to vent your post-pubescent hateful bile.
if this forum is so pointless, as you have pointed out in such angst-ridden juvenile detail, then why are *you* here? i gotta tell you, if i had 6,000 posts on *any* site, i would expect to own any debate with calm assurance, every time, no contest. yet you are still nothing more than a tedious screeching nuisance of hate and filth. furthermore, 6,000 posts seems to be compelling evidence of someone who is terrified of moving on to new challenges.
is this site nothing more than a vehicle for you to passive-aggressively attack others with your tedious melodramatic, clever (in a first-year philosophy class sense), profanity-laden insults? i have seen you contribute nothing positive - zip, nada, zero - to any debate or discussion. and i've actually looked. no new arguments, insights, or evidence; not even any new presentations of old data or metadata in new ways.
am i wrong?
says assrape (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1198.msg331767#msg331767) with 6,000 posts. there is nothing in the forum rules or common netiquette that says fresher members can't engage themselves in debates you have tried and failed to win thousands of times before. otherwise this site would grow stale. not what fes wants. and you would have nowhere to vent your post-pubescent hateful bile.
if this forum is so pointless, as you have pointed out in such angst-ridden juvenile detail, then why are *you* here? i gotta tell you, if i had 6,000 posts on *any* site, i would expect to own any debate with calm assurance, every time, no contest. yet you are still nothing more than a tedious screeching nuisance of hate and filth. furthermore, 6,000 posts seems to be compelling evidence of someone who is terrified of moving on to new challenges.
is this site nothing more than a vehicle for you to passive-aggressively attack others with your tedious melodramatic, clever (in a first-year philosophy class sense), profanity-laden insults? i have seen you contribute nothing positive - zip, nada, zero - to any debate or discussion. and i've actually looked. no new arguments, insights, or evidence; not even any new presentations of old data or metadata in new ways.
am i wrong?