Flat Earth Theory

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 30
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
This is purely a discussion about the scientific method, and how we gather facts, not the facts themselves.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You can probably make simple experiments to show that the Earth is flat. But your line of sight is limited, which makes it impossible for you to see the entire Earth at once.

You could also make simple experiments to show that objects are not made of atoms. But your line of sight is limited, your eyes are not good enough to find atoms.

If science finds out that our personal experiences don't reflect the true nature of reality, then we should accept their theories since their experiments are better than our own.






These are all equipped with cameras and broadcasting equipment, sometimes even humans.

How do you interpret these images to say that the Earth is flat?
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
How do you interpret these images to say that the Earth is flat?
  By retreating into conspiracy theories, duh.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Can you specifically show me which video or image you'd like me to discuss?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
If science finds out that our personal experiences don't reflect the true nature of reality, then we should accept their theories since their experiments are better than our own.
NASA and Roscosmos are not science, they are top secret government agencies with extreme authority and discretion who say they are conducting scientific endeavours and experiments.

All other space agencies have to get full permission and hand over authority to these two agencies (mainly NASA) for what they do in space. China growing plants on the moo  (supposedly) required NASA's permission and observation every step of the way to ensure it didn't interfere with satellites and such (they say). You need to get permission from NASA for the UN to grant your nation permission to research space.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Also why do so ma y space agencies have the same logo trait of a red 7 or V?
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
What is the significance of a red 7 or v?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@janesix
Aside from VAV symbol that's linked to the occult, the symbol on its own isn't the significant thing, it's the fact it's being used by all of them, implying they're in on something together.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
To be called "secret" is an overexagoration.

Here is their main page: https://www.nasa.gov/

Not so much secrecy, they tell everyone about their main work



Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Specific images?



This happened in 1969, before photoshopping and advanced video editing was invented
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
I will explain to you what secrecy and authority are, in this context.

Do you know what an audit is? I don't mean a government-sanctioned financial audit of a government-run agency. I mean a thorough third party audit. This has mever ever been done and will never be done to NASA or Roscosmos because they're both entitled to the highest security clearance of their nations. I'll discuss the moon landing with you hut evenant round earthers propose it was faked, so why specifically go for that?

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
So... they have a symbol that's the same? Please explain how that gets you to- everything they say is a lie. Because science, cosmology, and even biology is all based off of the same framework - we have lights that work off our understanding of gravity - for example - Gravity light - by storing potential energy we can power light bulbs, and the only way that potential energy could move anything if is gravity was a factor - IF gravity is a factor it is simply impossible for the earth to be a "disk" regardless of Nasa's pictures or the like - even IF Nasa and co were lying (though you've yet to explain the 30 other companies not related that have found the exact same thing) physics would not support your conclusion. The only bit of the universe we've found to not apply to our understanding of physics is pre-big bang - which is not what we are discussing
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Faked? Which evidence do you have to support that accusation?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Since you have stopped replying regarding the secrecy aspect, I will consider that communicated sufficiently on my part.

Now for the faking of the moon landing, first of all how much do you know about Richard Nixon? Not just the man himself but his era.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
All nations and all companies have to have the explicit permission and overwatch of NASA on their projects. Only Roscosmos has special privilege to do rogue missions in space and they were in on the lie with NASA from the beginning anyway (if it's a lie).
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Please demonstrate that claim - furthermore - it doesn't do anything to actually address my point - EVEN IF I buy your argument regarding Nasa, that doesn't at all explain how physics works and how we can demonstrate they work on so many different levels. It doesn't explain how our knowledge of cosmology successfully influenced (and even helped advance) fields such as biology and chemistry. You have a claim without evidence, its an assertion, and on top of that - much more compelling arguments to not buy the flat earth. I've essentially been talked at for how much demonstration you've done. I've provided a list of over 30 different companies to you before, right before you blocked me in that other flat earther post, and you have yet to actually give me evidence that all of them require substantiation that they all need to get approval from Nasa - furthermore - you have yet to demonstrate that Nasa themselves are lying. Its just assertions, you know how uncompelling those are.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Who cares about who did what. We have real images, and real satellites in the atmosphere, and this is only possible if the Earth is round. Why would you reject this evidence?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
Please show me the images. I will discuss each one by one. The satellites and such are post-moon-landing. The technology of satellites as we know them came later on.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have discussed with you before what motives, means and opportunity there are if space travel is indeed a hoax. Each time, you get angry and then go out of your way to anger me because you feel offended.

Unless you're an astronaut, you don't know. Even NASA engineers can easily (and I mean easily) be kept out of the loop making calculations for the sake of it, not knowing it goes towards nothing more than perhaps robotics. Only the astronauts themselves and a few select high-ranking officials (as well as less well-known string-pullers) are in on the lie if it's an actual lie.

You also need to understand the lengths they'd go to, to keep the lie going. There have been astronauts claimed to have died on missions are in fact alive under aliases and sworn to secrecy:


^ despite concluding the conspiracy theory is incorrect, this is a great overview of one particular crew claimed to have died and fairly conclusive evidence that they're potentially living out quiet lives under aliases.


Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
An incorrect conspiracy theory is not evidence for anything.

Furthermore, rockets have been launched into space, to then fall into the ocean several days later. proof

This is a historic, not a scientific, fact. Nobody can deny this.




We know that things that go up fall down due to gravity. How on Earth did those rockets have enough fuel to hover over the Earth for several days?

Answer: they went high enough that gravity could not pull them down. At that height, it is realistic that they could take those pictures.

Also, they didn't have the technology to photoshop an image of the Earth, so why assume that the images are fake?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Where is your evidence then? You're claiming that the crew is alive - give me the evidence directly. Furthermore, no, you have gone on and on with assertions, but failed to provide a speck of actual evidence - furthermore, putting people in boxes only shows yours inability to refute an idea, not how "correct" you are.  You have also failed to acknowledge my argument from Physics. I am left with only one conclusions - that if your conspiracy is true you cannot prove it to be so - and that it is most likely not true.

  • Provide evidence that "Nasa" is lying (beyond unwarping pictures that become warped with perspective - that's a simple editing knowledge bud, please study some photography before you start making claims about it
  • Please provide evidence that every single space committee must attain permission from NASA before exploring
  • Please provide evidence that the earth is flat
  • Please provide evidence that the use of gravitational potential energy used to power Gravitylight, isn't using gravity



oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-> @Benjamin
Can you specifically show me which video or image you'd like me to discuss?
Satellites generates hundreds of new images of Earth daily.  Google Earth disproves flat earth. The mere fact of GPS or geo-synchronous orbit or the differences in time between satellites and the surface disproves flat earth.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RatMan.

What's the purpose of the big conspiracy.....Other than a big conspiracy.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
Actually, it is fascinating why even to this day in 21st century, 2020-2030 decade we still can't ever get a live photo or video feed from satellites that would prove exactly where they are in the sky vs us on Earth (especially in the southern hemisphere since this is quite different on flat vs Round earth).

I am talking about the accuracy of Google Maps except live, where we can wave up and prove it's there as well as zoom in and out to ascertain the shape and scope of Earth vs the region it zoomed in on.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can you give me examples of any missions that aren't done via either staying on ISS (which is owned by NASA alone) or done with full permission and oversight of NASA? 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Benjamin
The force that pulls us down is not necessarily gravity. If Gravity were how Newton described it, why aren't mosquitoes next to Mount Everest or tiny fish next to blue whales sucked in to the massive object via gravitational pull?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Um...

"Tianwen-1 is China's first independent interplanetary mission. The probe, a combination orbiter, lander and rover, launched from Earth aboard a Long March 5 rocket on July 23, 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. "


However that's not my burden its YOUR - you have claimed that ALL space missions are run through Nasa. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RatMan.

The force that pulls us down is known as Gravity.

That idea and that word, were thought up long before NASA and the USA were.

It's 20th century conspiracies, that need your explanation.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
The force of gravity, as described by Newton, is this strong:

MassObject1^2 

multiplied by

MassObject2^2

divided by

Distance^2

Mount Everest is not huge enough to have any effect on the mosquito, and the mosquito is not huge enough to be pulled towards the mountain.

However, on large scales Gravity coupled with fast movement can deform the Earth: https://study.com/academy/lesson/shape-of-the-earth-density-stress-gravity.html
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 79
Posts: 780
4
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
The conspiracy theory of a round-earth complot aside, we still have the problem of evidence. If we haven't travelled to space, which we obviously have, we wouldn't be able to decide what shape the Earth has. Even if we haven't been to space, that doesn't show us that the flat-earth model is better than the round-earth model. Science is all about models, and models are frequently proven wrong. What evidence does flat earth theory bring to the table, that should convince us of its validity? All images of a flat Earth are clearly photoshopped since flat-earthers haven't been to space. Why would we trust some random guys on the internet, or people in ancient times, to have a better model of the Earth than NASA? What phenomenon on the Earth does a flat-earth-model explain better than Einstein and Newton's model of a round earth?


More importantly, many features of the flat Earth model contradict conventional logic.
  • Light moves in every direction at once, which means a flat Earth would always be illuminated, but the flat Earth model says the sun has "directed" light output.
  • Gravity is explained by the flat Earth theory in two ways I am aware of:
    • Gravity is pushing all things towards the middle of the Earth, and the further from the centre, the more tilted the Earth gets. This explanation is total BS, as this constant tilting of the ground would create a sphere. The only option for such a theory is that the surface of Earth is non-continuous. Also, if gravity existed in ANY form, the Earth would be round.
    • Gravity does not exist, it is the Earth (and the celestial bodies) that accelerate upwards. This theory is also BS, as we would have come closer and closer to reach lightspeed, which would cause time-dilation and eventual freezing of time. Also, what force can be so absurdly strong as to accelerate an entire planet upwards, and what force can be so absurdly specific as to accelerate the Earth but not its inhabitants.
  • The wall of ice preventing water from leaving the planet certainly cannot stop the Atmosphere from falling of the edge.
  • The sun, being so close, would easily be seen above the clouds as much larger. But even from the perspective of an aeroplane, the sun is still rising and sinking
  • Why does the sunrise and fall if is simply moving around the Eart?

All of these parts of the Flat Earth theory are clearly in defiance of normal physics, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to consider as a scientific possibility. 

At best, the flat Earth theory is a theory of simulation. God(s), alien masters, or something similar are needed to even let a flat Earth be a possibility. 

What evidence should convince scientists that the Earth is flat? Why, in the absence of such evidence, do people believe the Earth is flat?

How is it a conspiracy to not accept this flat out not Earth theory?