Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 98

Thread: The earth is Flat!!!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    I have found substancial proof that the earth is flat!!! NASA Is lying, there is no space shuttle, and the world is not round because people in australia would be pulled off the earth because of the downward pull of gravity!! Beieve it or not, but it is. *

    Go here:

    1. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...latWhyFlat.htm

    2. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm




    *O.K. I actually don't believe it but i am allowed some articsic and dramatic flair to promote a hilarious site am i not? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    Thank you, g99! Thank you!

    You know, I actually joined "The International Flat Earth Research Society" (Charles Johnson's group, now run after his death by his wife Marjorie.)

    Anyone who absolutely insists on absolute Biblical Literalness must accept that the world is flat. Charles Johnson (bless his memory) emphasized that for most of his life.

    Our resident geocentrists have only got half the truth. (Notice that I didn't say which half!)

    Silas

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    hehe [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    one down, only 900 more to go on this board. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Someday everyond in the world will believe that the world is flat. Lets rise up and take over this board, round..oops ummm...I mean Flat-earthers unite! *

    But seriously. I have heard some really weird theories: The earth is 10,000 years old and all of the evidence for it not being was created to fool us, geocentrism, ect. But there are still people who belive that the earth is flat is really beyond me. Have they not seen pictures of the world from space? Maybe they were doctored by the same guys who took the moon pictures. Some artists created the image of the earth and we are spending billions of dollars on satyelites that actually don't exhist or satelite T.V. that doesent work. hmmm...I smell conspiracy theory.




    *Also canada will rule the world from the north pole. But that is a different matter. Teach your kids the canadian national anthem now bewcuse at the begining of next year the world will be united under the rule of one glorious canadian named Ed. And the world language will be Canadian, not english, Canadian (if you don't know what it is shame on you!). Also the greeting "Hi" will be replaced by "Eh!" and maple suryp will rep[lace Ketchup, mustard, and relish as the only condement allowed on burgers and hotdogs. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [i have too much time on my hands sometimes. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    153
    Not only if you believe in taking the
    BIBLE literally you would have to believe the world is flat -

    If you take Nasa literally, you would have to believe their is no gravity in space
    - "zero gee". Or the Sun moves and not the Earth "The sun is rising over Kennedy Space Center..."

    Srange how some people(both believers and unbelievers) wont let God use the same figures of speach we use every day, let alone any literary symbolism.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,527
    On 2002-09-30 01:43, Cloudy wrote:
    Not only if you believe in taking the
    BIBLE literally you would have to believe the world is flat -

    If you take Nasa literally, you would have to believe their is no gravity in space
    - "zero gee". Or the Sun moves and not the Earth "The sun is rising over Kennedy Space Center..."

    Srange how some people(both believers and unbelievers) wont let God use the same figures of speach we use every day, let alone any literary symbolism.
    Well if it's literary symbolism, it's not literal then, is it?

    I haven't heard anyone going around with recordings from NASA's everyday communications saying it represents scientific fact.

    I don't mean to imply I didn't understand what you meant. I just don't agree with the analogy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    On 2002-09-29 20:18, g99 wrote:

    people in australia would be pulled off the earth because of the downward pull of gravity!!
    I'm glad that only the people in Australia would.

    (Whooosh. This passed close...)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    On 2002-09-30 01:43, Cloudy wrote:
    Srange how some people(both believers and unbelievers) wont let God use the same figures of speach we use every day, let alone any literary symbolism.
    The problem arises when people argue that the Bible is the inerrant word of God rather than a spin doctored press release or a loose approximation of reality. The "sun rising" is an observation, not a scientific fact. Zero gravity in earth orbit is an effect that is observable as a result of well understood laws of physics. If people would accept your view that the Bible is just a collection of loose language that approximates reality, perhaps there'd be a lot less polarization of scientific and religious views. Of course, if that were the case, religion would look a lot different than it does.

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-09-30 19:02 ]</font>

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    203
    *heavy sigh* ...and link #1 is on a server here in Alaska. How sad.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    On 2002-09-30 12:43, Gramma loreto wrote:
    *heavy sigh* ...and link #1 is on a server here in Alaska. How sad.
    Ah - c'mon Loreto. 'Fess up. You've been a clandestine flat earther all along, running that website up there in Alaska (where you won't fall off). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    After reading about the flat earth society, I had a EUREKA moment.

    IDEA FOR A NEW SPACE ELEVATOR:

    This is based on the fact that Australians fall northward and Alaskans fall southward.

    Take 1 Alaskan and 1 Aussie of equal weight and have them meet at the equator.

    Put their feet together so that they are each standing on the bottom of the other's foot. Then give them a rope and have them walk away from the Earth, dragging your payload behind them. Make sure some of the payload is from the northside and some from the southside so it doesn't fall!

    Voila! Space elevator!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    here is a quote from the 1st site.

    "1) Staying on top

    Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?"


    hehehe...[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I just have to sit for a moment and pull myself off the floor from my fit of laugthing before i start typing again..........Phew, that was a long one. Now can anyone explain how gravvity pulls people southwards on the south pole?

    P.S. i said australia b.c it is funnyer to do a populated nation than one with a few dozen crazy scientists who love to make snowmen 24 hours a day 365.25 days a year. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  12. #12
    At the bottom of there home page it reads:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.
    </BLOCKQUOTE>

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    On 2002-10-02 13:03, AWright wrote:
    At the bottom of there home page it reads:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>The Flat Earth Society is not in any way responsible for the failure of the French to repel the Germans at the Maginot Line during WWII. Nor is the Flat Earth Society responsible for the recent yeti sightings outside the Vatican, or for the unfortunate enslavement of the Nabisco Inc. factory employees by a rogue hamster insurrectionist group. Furthermore, we are not responsible for the loss of one or more of the following, which may possibly occur as the result of exposing one's self to the dogmatic and dangerously subversive statements made within: life, limb, vision, Francois Mitterand, hearing, taste, smell, touch, thumb, Aunt Mildred, citizenship, spleen, bedrock, cloves, I Love Lucy reruns, toaster, pine derby racer, toy duck, antelope, horseradish, prosthetic ankle, double-cheeseburger, tin foil, limestone, watermelon-scented air freshner, sanity, paprika, German to Pig Latin dictionary, dish towel, pet Chihuahua, pogo stick, Golf Digest subscription, floor tile, upper torso or halibut.
    </blockquote>
    So is the site a big joke or someone got really bored? To me it seems like too much work for a joke site. But then again i have been known to make up a whole 10 min long speech on really stupid stuff, so it could be fake. The only thing is is that i found it on a website promoting alternate religious theories to creationism. So at least that author thought it was real.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    There are two separate "Flat Earth Societies." The original, the "Flat Earth Research Society," founded by Charles Johnson, was completely serious. (Entirely humorless, and very bitter and nasty, to tell the truth.)

    The more modern internet web-site is just for laughs.

    Silas

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    Silas,
    The second link deals with johnson. Boy what a strange man he is.

    I wonder what is would be like if we did live on a flat earth? What would the other sidfe be like? A mirror universe of the side you are on? if oneside was facing the sun and the other not, then there would be a whole light/dark ecosystem thing going on and you would have two tottaly seperate ecosysytems and evolutions patterns. That would be really cool to see. Hmm a really cool experiment too. I can imagine a civ. of night dellers and a civ. of day dwellers. One has never seen the sun, one has never seen the night sky. Would make a very inteesting history indeed.

    I am a anthropologist at heart, i always think of these things. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    701
    If the Earth is flat like a map, which projection would be an accurate picture of the Earth.

    Is the Earth really cut up like an orange?



    Are the continents distorted relative to what we would think a spherical Earth is like?





    Are distances and sizes distorted?



    Notice how he leaves this vital piece of information out!

    _________________
    *****∞
    π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
    ****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-10-03 16:13 ]</font>

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    I tghe earth was flat it would not matter what type, most likely the last. But the last is even wrong on a flat earth. The last seems to be a mercator projection with the poles distortend and the ewquator acurate.

    A better way to tottaly disprove his theory with Two simple questions:

    "If the world is flat how do we get the seasons? When you go up in a plane how come you see the curve of the earth? "

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    I don't think the point is to prove or refute the theory. I think it has more to do with nostalgia for the simplistic outlook of earlier mankind.

    Trying to argue with a flat earther is probably as productive as telling a "knight" at a renaissance festival that he should trade in his lance for a rifle. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    721
    On 2002-10-03 17:44, g99 wrote:
    A better way to tottaly disprove his theory with Two simple questions:

    "If the world is flat how do we get the seasons? When you go up in a plane how come you see the curve of the earth? "
    Well, you could have seasons on a flat earth, but they'd be the same everywhere. A better way to phrase the question is "how could we have different seasons in different parts of the Earth at the same time?".

    The "curve" of the earth is an optical illusion caused by atmospheric bending of light rays??

    The good thing about having a ridiculous theory is you can just make up any nonsense explanation and go "blah blah blah" when someone challenges you.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-10-03 19:08, DaveC wrote:
    On 2002-10-03 17:44, g99 wrote:
    A better way to tottaly disprove his theory with Two simple questions:

    "If the world is flat how do we get the seasons? When you go up in a plane how come you see the curve of the earth? "
    Well, you could have seasons on a flat earth, but they'd be the same everywhere. A better way to phrase the question is "how could we have different seasons in different parts of the Earth at the same time?".

    The "curve" of the earth is an optical illusion caused by atmospheric bending of light rays??

    The good thing about having a ridiculous theory is you can just make up any nonsense explanation and go "blah blah blah" when someone challenges you.
    The IFERS holds with the polar projection. (They also note with glee that this is "official" since it's on the flat of the United Nations.)

    re seeing the curve of the earth, this is just an optical illusion caused by refraction of the light.

    (By the way, that's actually true...but just happens to work in the *opposite* was from the claim! The atmosphere *does* refract light, causing some amusing illusions right about the time of sundown. Ask the Bad Astronomer! He was the one who taught that to me!)

    As for the Seasons, isn't it obvious? The sun moves along an epicyclic path! Gosharooty, you guys make it easy!

    Silas


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    The sun moves in a epicyclic path!!! That is crazy!! Evyone knows that the sun moves in its own shell inbetween the jam a peanut butter shells!!! And the curve of the earth seen on the airplane are painted on by nasa technitians (the same ones who painted on the earth to every shot taken on the moon, and who coloured over all of the stars on the moon pictures to to make them look black. ). Comeone get it right!!!

    On the second site they say the earth and solar system relationship:
    "The known, inhabited world is flat. Just as a guess, I'd say that the dome of heaven is about 4,000 miles away, and the stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston...The sun and moon, in the Johnson version, are only about 32 miles in diameter. They circle above the earth in the vicinity of the equator, and their apparent rising and setting are tricks of perspective, like railroad tracks that appear to meet in the distance. The moon shines by its own light and is not eclipsed by the earth. Rather, lunar eclipses are caused by an unseen dark body occasionally passing in front of the moon..."

    More fun stuff from the site: According to Johnson, "George Washington, on the other hand, was a flat-earther. He broke with England to get away from those superstitions."

    "Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."


    And here is one for the B.A. I bet even he hasn't heard this moon landing fake thory yet: "The high point came in 1969, when the U.S. landed men on the moon.

    That, according to Johnson, is nonsense, because the moon landings were faked by Hollywood studios. He even names the man who wrote the scripts: the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. But he acknowledges that the moon landings were at least partly successful.

    "Until then," he says, "almost no one seriously considered the world a ball. The landings converted a few of them, but many are coming back now and getting off of it."

    Perhaps the Space Shuttle is intended to bolster the beliefs of these backsliders. Whatever its purpose, Johnson is convinced that it is not intended to actually fly. Because it was built and tested almost in his back yard, he knows many people who worked on it. What they've told him about some aspects of its construction only reinforces his convictions.

    "They moved it across the field," he sneers, "and it almost fell apart. All those little side pieces are on with epoxy, and half fell off!"

    The Shuttle had other problems besides heat resistant tiles that wouldn't stick. For instance, when the testers tried to mount it on a 747 for its first piggy-back test flight, it wouldn't fit.

    "Can you imagine that?" chortles Johnson. "Millions of dollars they spent, and it wouldn't fit! They had to call in a handyman to drill some new holes to make the thing fit. Then they took it up in the air--and some more of it fell to pieces."

    If the Shuttle ever does orbit on its own, it's supposed to return to Edwards Air Force Base. To Johnson, that's appropriate enough.

    "Do you know what they're doing at Edwards right now?" he asks. "'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century' is made right where they claim they're going to land the Shuttle. Edwards is strictly a science-fiction base now.




    my favorite argument against the proof of a flat earth and the tottal truth of the bible (flat earthers are the sect of strict creationists who bvelieve the bible is the literal truth and is above all natural laws) is: "if the bible is the truth, and Adam and eve were the first humans, then are we not all inbred? Who did their children have intercourse with to make their own kids? Eachother..""


    So the spacew shuttle is fake too, hmm...[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]



  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    276
    So how come no travel agencies advertise trips to the edge of the Earth? Hell... I'D pay to go see that.

    The flat-earthers failed to take commercialism into account. And thus, their theory collapses.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,874
    On 2002-10-03 20:11, overrated wrote:
    So how come no travel agencies advertise trips to the edge of the Earth? Hell... I'D pay to go see that.

    The flat-earthers failed to take commercialism into account. And thus, their theory collapses.
    According to Johnson: "At the outer edge lies the southern ice, reputed to be a wall 150 feet high; no one has ever crossed it, and therefore what lies beyond is unknown."


    I know what is beyond it: the edge of the table he put it model on!!! (I know these bad jokes have to stop!!!)

    Ahh but airplanes and travel agencies weren't invented untill the 20th century and thus are not in the bible, so he does not believe they exhist. So how can you travel in something that can't exhist, duh!


    Now what happens to all of the air and stuff that floats to this imaginary wall? does it just stop, make a u-turn and keep going the other way? or does it go on the otherside of the earth untill it makes one big circle again.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    276
    150 feet high! Holy crap! You'd need... like... a ladder or something to overcome such a substantial obstacle.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-10-03 21:16, g99 wrote:
    According to Johnson: "At the outer edge lies the southern ice, reputed to be a wall 150 feet high; no one has ever crossed it, and therefore what lies beyond is unknown."
    He said, at some point, that what lies beyond is an infinite plain of ice.

    He doesn't understand people.

    I wrote a science fiction story (unpublished, doggone it!) in which that was the truth... And people were engaged in endurance runs, using the fuel-caching technique, to see who could explore out the farthest into the empty barren plain.

    Because...that's exactly what people would do!

    Humanity loves a challenge. We love to calculate the next digit of pi. We love the "Strongest Man on Earth" contest. (There is a kind of combination of the two, in which people compete to memorize record-breaking expressions of pi!)

    I wrote to Charles Johnson and mentioned this, and he sent me back a form letter that had no relevance whatever to what I'd said.

    Silas

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    276
    Silas,

    My curiousity is ignited by your story idea... is your world technologically advanced? Because now I'm thinking: What would an infinite plain of ice look like from space? Mind-bending.

    _________________
    PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-10-03 23:14 ]</font>

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    On 2002-10-03 23:14, overrated wrote:
    Silas,

    My curiousity is ignited by your story idea... is your world technologically advanced? Because now I'm thinking: What would an infinite plain of ice look like from space? Mind-bending.
    Well, my story didn't involve any tech advance. Just snowmobiles and fuel barrels....

    People would go out, stop, drop off fuel cans, and come back. After a while, they would use those fuel cans to go out farther, to drop off fuel cans... It's a simple recursive math problem...

    In such a world, you couldn't have actual orbits; you'd be stuck with sounding rockets. From high altitudes, the world would look like -- well, a vast flat plain.

    But the moral point I'm trying to make is: we would keep sending up higher and higher sounding rockets. We'd send out rockets to east and west and north and south. We'd keep on pushing the frontiers.

    Because pushing the frontiers is a very important part of human curiosity.

    Silas

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,836
    Hey Silas

    The speculative fiction writing group I belong to will soon start work on its next anthology. The proposed theme is "Fantastic Places". Maybe you might want to pull the story out, polish it up a bit and submit it to the anthology?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    561
    On 2002-10-04 00:56, Silas wrote:
    But the moral point I'm trying to make is: we would keep sending up higher and higher sounding rockets. We'd send out rockets to east and west and north and south. We'd keep on pushing the frontiers.
    Cool scenario.

    Just be sure not to send the rockets too high up. If you're caught peeking into Heaven, your society will suddenly forget the common language and speak in their own tongues!

    What happens if they try to visit the tunnel where the sun comes out each morning? I guess they would need more sunscreen than Icarus had [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    701
    Do these people take a specific passage in the Bible too literally? Creationists take the first chapters of Genesis extremely literally. Do these people take the passage(s) about the "four corners of the Earth" too literally? Or do they just object because of... Ummmmmm... *Scientific* reasons?

    P.S. I mean *What they would consider scientific* [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Similar Threads

  1. Flat Earth
    By Lepton in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-10, 09:17 PM
  2. Do they really think the earth is flat?
    By Sticks in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-09, 09:05 PM
  3. Flat earth
    By parallaxicality in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-23, 02:55 PM
  4. The Earth is flat!
    By Lam in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-11, 05:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: