Round Earth, Not Flat.

  • 40 Replies
  • 6136 Views
Round Earth, Not Flat.
« on: December 06, 2008, 07:01:15 PM »
Ok, now, I've come here just to laugh at you guys pretty much.

Mostly because it is completely insane to believe that the Earth is flat, but another because I have to relate it to something else so you can see just how insane you guys are.

Point #1:
     If the Earth is truly flat then why is it that a flight from California to Florida takes the same amount of time on the same type of plane to take a flight from California to China or India?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #2:
     If the Earth is truly flat then where exactly does it end, and why can noone seem to see or show any pictures of it, from any country?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #3:
     If the Earth is truly flat then how is it that the seasons change and wind flows over time while the sun rotates from horizon to horizon over out heads?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #4:
     If the Earth is truly flat then who discovered the end of the earth and why is it that most voyages to Asian countries from Western America take a short time and the boats head west?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #5:
     If the Earth is truly flat then what causes gravity to exist on our plane of existance when it has been logically explained that it is caused by the matter and space the Earth has taken up along with its spinning to produce what we call, gravity? Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #6:
     If the Earth is truly flat then when will the land disintegrate into nothingness if the ends are icecaps or waterfalls or whatever and why are the ends ice that doesn't fall of the end of the Earth itself?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #7:
     If the Earth is truly flat then why do compasses work when it is clearly because the island of extreme magnetism near the north pole?  Why, because the Earth is not flat.

Point #8:
     You say that the Earth and all celestial bodies are accelerating upwards at 1g, but it's been shown in tests that you could run yourselves that gravity isn't uniform across Earth. Also, what would be causing everything to be accelerated upwards? God?

Point #9:
     Where's your evidence?

You may begin to refute these points but at the same time I will be calling you all morons because there really is no way that I'll ever be able to agree with such prepostorous ideas...and now here is my analogy as to tell you what you guys look like to me.


1)  It is like believing that Spongebob Squarepants exists in real life.
2)  It is like believing that playing Guitar Hero makes you a good guitarist.
3)  It is like believing Gilligan's Island and thinking it was actual events.
4)  It is like believing that fire doesn't burn.
5)  It is like believing that the color green is really black.


Why did I put these?  Because the Earth is not flat....oh, the other reason....because it is too stupid to believe any of these things.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 07:40:28 PM by Mr. Round Earth »

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2008, 07:31:54 PM »
You need to lurk moar. Why? Because you didn't read the FAQ...

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2008, 07:35:47 PM »
The FAQ didn't refute all of my points.

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2008, 07:37:03 PM »
Try reading it again. It'll stick eventually.

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2008, 07:38:48 PM »
It didn't refute Points #1, #4, #6, #8 or #9.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 07:40:38 PM by Mr. Round Earth »

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2008, 07:42:04 PM »
Question #8 is actually answered in the FAQ. The others are simply nonsensical.

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2008, 07:43:53 PM »
Question #8 is actually answered in the FAQ. The others are simply nonsensical.

Right, who needs evidence anyways?

Also, I saw the FAQ, and it only said that we're accelerating upwards. It didn't say what could be causing it.

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2008, 07:48:20 PM »
For evidence, read Earth: Not A Globe by Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

It is available to read free of charge at the following address:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Also, the FAQ is quite clear what is causing the upwards acceleration of the earth. Run a search for the Universal Accelerator for more intimate details.

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2008, 07:49:27 PM »
Then why isn't g uniform across all of Earth?

Also, Rowbotham's experiments only proved that Earth isn't small. His conclusions are based on leaps of logic worthy of creationists.

But whatever, it's pointless to argue with any of you, since you're so solidly certain that you're right and I'm wrong and any evidence of a round Earth is explained by a conspiracy or "bendy light."
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 08:02:46 PM by Mr. Round Earth »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17159
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2008, 08:06:00 PM »
Quote
Then why isn't g uniform across all of Earth?

Also, Rowbotham's experiments only proved that Earth isn't small. His conclusions are based on leaps of logic worthy of creationists.

But whatever, it's pointless to argue with any of you, since you're so solidly certain that you're right and I'm wrong and any evidence of a round Earth is explained by a conspiracy or "bendy light."

Thank you for the comments. Now please leave.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 08:10:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2008, 08:09:54 PM »
*sigh* And Round Earthers claim to be reasonable... ::)

?

Bobbias

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2008, 02:57:05 AM »
I'm a round earther and I certainly don't claim to be reasonable. Not when people are stupid enough to believe this lunacy.

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2008, 04:29:30 AM »
*sigh* And Round Earthers claim to be reasonable... ::)
No, Rational.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2008, 05:52:53 AM »
Quote
Then why isn't g uniform across all of Earth?

Also, Rowbotham's experiments only proved that Earth isn't small. His conclusions are based on leaps of logic worthy of creationists.

But whatever, it's pointless to argue with any of you, since you're so solidly certain that you're right and I'm wrong and any evidence of a round Earth is explained by a conspiracy or "bendy light."

Thank you for the comments. Now please leave.

TOM BISHOP HAS SPOKEN.

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10731
  • ...
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2008, 07:40:45 AM »
The eath is flat, and you are stupid.
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

?

Bobbias

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2008, 10:27:24 PM »
Also, according to physics, light CAN bend, but it requires very high levels of gravity to be noticeable.

Also, light moving from one material to another bends. It's called refraction, and it's pretty easy to demonstrate.

Light bends around earth as it travels into the atmosphere. This is due to the fact that the atmosphere has several "zones" where the density changes drastically, causing a section of the atmosphere to have a different index of refraction than the areas above or below it, and thus changing the angle that the light moves in.

And physics has proven that light can bend around large objects, such as stars, and black holes and other objects with extremely large amounts of mass.

So though scientifically "plausible", the whole Bendy Light theory relies on selectively using science to explain some things, while ignoring it for other things.

*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2008, 12:46:17 AM »
Ok, now, I've come here just to laugh at you guys pretty much.
I would laugh at you being so amazingly pointless and slow but that would involve effort to which I consider to have none spare for you.

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2008, 12:51:29 AM »
Interesting how all of his [coherent] questions were answered simply by rereading the FAQ... ::)

?

T.T. Monsieur

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2008, 10:26:36 AM »
Interesting how all of his [coherent] questions were answered simply by rereading the FAQ... ::)

Yeah but the FE FAQ is like reading "Mein Kampf" in FAQ format.

Somehow... it's just not right... and it leaves more questions than answers, such as "Has the author tried discussing his problems with a psychotherapist?"
Thank you for adhering to Godwin's Law. :D

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2008, 06:53:00 PM »
Interesting how all of his [coherent] questions were answered simply by rereading the FAQ... ::)

hmmm....I don't see how that is, because none of you, nor the FAQ, has proven anything that deems it otherwise that the Earth is not round.

Also, my great uncle was friends with Neil Armstrong who had brought back pictures of the Earth with him so I think its pretty safe (and legitimate) to say that the Earth is round and you just lost THE GAME!

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2008, 04:51:49 AM »
My Uncle went to Paris and has a picture where he's holding the Arc De Triomphe in the palm of his hand, so I think it's pretty safe (and legitimate) to say l'Arc is a few inches high. Also you lost the game; it's been 20 minutes.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2008, 05:11:25 AM »
My Uncle went to Paris and has a picture where he's holding the Arc De Triomphe in the palm of his hand, so I think it's pretty safe (and legitimate) to say l'Arc is a few inches high. Also you lost the game; it's been 20 minutes.
But other evidence shows that the Arch de Triumph is not a few inches high. IE, actually going and making measurements of it.

When people make actual measurements of the surface of the Earth, they end up with geodesics (a geodesic is a straight line in non-Euclidean space, on a flat plane it is mathematically identical to a straight line) that mathematically require the Earth to be round. And actually, much of the same techniques used to measure the dimensions of the Arc de Triumph are used in the measuring of the surface of the Earth. So if you accept that the techniques for measuring the Arc to be accurate, then you also have to accept that the same techniques when applied to the surface of the Earth are also correct, and if they are correct (as they can be shown mathematically), then you have to accept a Round Earth.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2008, 05:13:35 AM »
Theory and execution are entirely different realms.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2008, 01:42:19 PM »
I hope I haven't missed anything, there's quite much said in this thread.

I'd just like to say that even though I believe that the earth is round, I also believe that anything could be...well, anything. And that is the reason why I think of earth as round...because most of the society around me accepts earth as round, I have been taught it's round etc.
So I don't feel the need to think differently, and so the "absolute truth" if it excists doesn't really matter...because I don't want to start doubting reality.

So basically why I'm saying this (and why I made a user here) is because of the flow of ridiculous people from another forum lately (as I understand), I just seriously dislike people who don't give room for other ideologies and beliefs, like them.
P.S I'm not saying "I hate" because I never hate people

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2008, 02:52:43 PM »
Theory and execution are entirely different realms.
Well I have measured Trig points and the measurements indicate a Round Earth. So in execution, Round Earth succeeds.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2008, 03:30:49 PM »
Theory and execution are entirely different realms.
Well I have measured Trig points and the measurements indicate a Round Earth. So in execution, Round Earth succeeds.

Details please.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2008, 03:54:27 PM »
Interesting how all of his [coherent] questions were answered simply by rereading the FAQ... ::)

hmmm....I don't see how that is, because none of you, nor the FAQ, has proven anything that deems it otherwise that the Earth is not round.


This forum doesn't exist to "prove" anything, or even to disprove anything.  Most of us are essentially arguing the plausibility of the FE model.  This forum isn't a propaganda machine designed to upset the apple cart and convince impressionable minds that the earth is flat, and it's really a shame that some people approach it that way because they are ultimately missing out on a really rich and fulfilling experience.  Admittedly we're going through an unfortunate lull right now, but the forum is still full of truly intelligent people who enjoy thinking outside the box and have informed and often scholarly opinions regarding the subject matter, whether they're arguing for or against a flat earth, or are debating in one of the other subforums.  But I digress.  The point is that most of us aren't out to prove the earth is flat at all.  As a visitor it's up to you to show us why we're wrong.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2008, 04:14:33 PM »
Theory and execution are entirely different realms.
Well I have measured Trig points and the measurements indicate a Round Earth. So in execution, Round Earth succeeds.

Details please.
Details are meaningless here as it has been made abundantly cleare that no FEer will accept any RE data as every single time we have posted such data, it has been rejected as made up and therefore further proof of the conspiracy.

So no. I will not post data, not because I don't have it, but because it will not be accepted. But if you want the data, you can find it on Cartographic sites (for the US, this would be the USGS sites). And yes, I know that these would be government sites, but what is important is that you can then personally check and verify if the data is correct, or faked. If the Governments were in a conspiracy, why would they post data that would allow the conspiracy to be so easily revealed.

The alternative is that the Method be posted so that if someone want to disprove it, then can check it themselves.

As the method is just Trigonometry to calculate the distances, and then the application of Geometry, this can be verified as being correct (1 + 1 does equal 2 after all).

What you will find is that the distances (over a large enough area) will not be able to be mapped to a flat plane, and if you known Non-Euclidean Geometry, the distances you get will only conform to a sphere.

Now, before people go off saying that their data is faked. Sure it might be, but I have posted the method by which, if you really believe that and want to completely disprove RET, you can. The only down side for you is, that if it produces the results that disprove FET, then you will have a problem.

So you can't claim that I have not posted evidence. I have. I have stated that the data I got conformed to the data supplied by the governments. Not only that, I ahve posted the method by which I got that data, and that you yourself can use to check it. If I was not confident that the data supplied by the governments were correct, I would not have posted that I agree with it (and as it is more accurate and there is a larger amount of it covering a larger area, it is more efficient for me to specify that than post the data I have, as unless you are in the same location as me, the measurements I made, are not verifiable by you), or posted the method by which I got the data so that you can verify it.

Therefore I have, by the conditions needed to be classed as acceptable evidence, I have supplied evidence.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2008, 05:11:38 AM »
Theory and execution are entirely different realms.
Well I have measured Trig points and the measurements indicate a Round Earth. So in execution, Round Earth succeeds.

Details please.
Details are meaningless here as it has been made abundantly cleare that no FEer will accept any RE data as every single time we have posted such data, it has been rejected as made up and therefore further proof of the conspiracy.

So no. I will not post data, not because I don't have it, but because it will not be accepted. But if you want the data, you can find it on Cartographic sites (for the US, this would be the USGS sites). And yes, I know that these would be government sites, but what is important is that you can then personally check and verify if the data is correct, or faked. If the Governments were in a conspiracy, why would they post data that would allow the conspiracy to be so easily revealed.

The alternative is that the Method be posted so that if someone want to disprove it, then can check it themselves.

As the method is just Trigonometry to calculate the distances, and then the application of Geometry, this can be verified as being correct (1 + 1 does equal 2 after all).

What you will find is that the distances (over a large enough area) will not be able to be mapped to a flat plane, and if you known Non-Euclidean Geometry, the distances you get will only conform to a sphere.

Now, before people go off saying that their data is faked. Sure it might be, but I have posted the method by which, if you really believe that and want to completely disprove RET, you can. The only down side for you is, that if it produces the results that disprove FET, then you will have a problem.

So you can't claim that I have not posted evidence. I have. I have stated that the data I got conformed to the data supplied by the governments. Not only that, I ahve posted the method by which I got that data, and that you yourself can use to check it. If I was not confident that the data supplied by the governments were correct, I would not have posted that I agree with it (and as it is more accurate and there is a larger amount of it covering a larger area, it is more efficient for me to specify that than post the data I have, as unless you are in the same location as me, the measurements I made, are not verifiable by you), or posted the method by which I got the data so that you can verify it.

Therefore I have, by the conditions needed to be classed as acceptable evidence, I have supplied evidence.

You have made a claim, and a claim is never evidence. I consider that I have a good enough grasp of the English language and enough intelligence to declare that this post is what some refer to in conversation analysis as a 'face saver'.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Round Earth, Not Flat.
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2008, 12:07:46 PM »
A flat earth could exist. But its not the earth we're stood on right now. And it's phsyics would be waaaay different to ours.
Once again, simply stating so does not prove anything. We are yet to have you (or any other round earther) provide us with something that even remotely resembles evidence that the earth is anything but flat. Your posts are very colorful and imaginative, but I'm afraid that they have no real academic substance to them at all. I would suggest a creative writing forum over debate for someone of your talents.