Flat Earth

Date	Name	Comment
13-Apr-02	RR	You are a moron!
Yes indeed, real intelligent debate material there! Don't you feel sorry for those people who have so little to stand on that they can only resort to name-calling.
23-Jan-06	Noelle	I think the opinions may be silly, but the style with which you hold them is undeniable. Personally, I agree with much that you say. To quote myself,(in reference to the scientific community), "Just because you are certain, doesn't mean you're right."
Ah, finally, after almost four years, an honest intelligent opinion. We have the right to disagree on opinions held, but this visitor proves that we can be civil in our disagreement. Perhaps there is hope.
25-Jan-06	RBell	Do you no who the first person was that said the earth was flat?
There is an ongoing disgreement as to who was the first person to suggest that the Earth was flat. Some say it was Og, who claimed that he looked out of his cave one day and didn't see a curvature in the Earth. Others disagree and suggest that it was probably Ungh who claimed that Og actually got the idea from him during a "poke her" game.
26-Nov-06	TAG	Question for you then in reference to your ship explanation. We can measure the speed of light and it's fast enough to cross and recross the diameter of a flat earth several times a second. Assuming a photon doesn't create appreciable air-resistance (we're assuming a photon as an apprecible, almost infintesimal mass to actually be affected by gravity), how could light drop upwards of five meters in less than thirty miles?
Have you personally measured the speed of light? This, in and of itself, is the basis for this whole discussion. Everybody presumes the speed of light is 300,000 Km/sec (186,000 Mi/sec). Why? Because the scientists have told us so! But how do they know? Because some other scientists told them! A long time ago someone claimed to have measured the speed of light. A few others claimed that they verified it. And that was that. Now it's a common acceptance, as sure as death and taxes. Tell you what, you measure the speed of light and get back to me, will you?
26-Nov-06	skeptical scientist	You can prove the earth is round. I give you three pieces of evidence: 1) Sunsets. Every evening, the sun appears to sink below the horizon. In the flat-earth model, the sun is always above the horizon. Therefore, the flat-earth model cannot explain sunsets. 2) North and south celestial poles. In the northern hemisphere, stars appear to circle around the north star, which remains fixed. In the southern hemisphere, stars appear to circle around the southern celestial pole, which remains fixed. Therefore the stars in the sky circle around two seperate points, depending on where you are in the world. This is not possible if they are a dome overhead, and is only possible if they completely encircle a round earth. 3) Ships sinking into the horizon. You've obviously seen this argument, but your explanation cannot account for the phenomenon. You are only considering the rays of light emitted directly from the ship in the direction of the horizon, which dip below the viewer, but you aren't considering the rays of light emitted at an upwards angle. Those would still reach the viewer, even if the effect were as drastic as your out of scale diagrams illustrate.
1) Can be explained with the same explanation for the ships appearing to disappear beyond the horizon. Please see my explaination on the Ships Explained page. 2) The north pole is at the center of the Earth disk, so of course they circle around the North Star. As for the stars circling around the south celestial pole, have you ever seen this actually happen? Second hand (or even third hand) knowledge is shakey at best. Of course pictures can be faked. 3) This I must consider. However, the fact that it is not easily explained does not mean that I am not right. Consider this... If you believe in a heliocentric model, then Copernicus envisioned circular motions of the planets around the Sun. This did not fit the actual observations, however. It wasn't until Newton suggested that the motions were actually elliptical. Again, if you believe in the heliocentric model, the fact that Copernicus wasn't quite right did not mean he was completely wrong.
26-Nov-06	dantheman40k	I'm sure you get this all the time but frankly I dont care. This whole theory is a perversion of science at its highest degree. There are no facts, just conjecture and speculation. At least RE has substantial evidence. To close, you are doing a disservice to science and the progress of humankind. Go fuck yourselves.
Aside from the last sentence which is typical of the pseudoscientists, this is exactly science. This is questioning the accepted in spite of overwhelming disagreement. Presenting observations, and theories to explain those observations. You, on the otherhand, accept what you are told like a good little peon.

Home	The Theory	The Conspiracy	Pictures Explained	Shadows Explained
Ships Explained	Why This Site?	Comments	Feedback