NationStates Jolt Archive

http://factualmaterial.com/flatearthfucks.htm

Enlightening. Just shows that you don't need religion to be a blithering idiot.

Wow. Just... Wow.

Then there are always the jokers (http://batesmotel.8m.com/) that swear there was never any moon landing. The sad thing is that NASA has actually felt the need to rebut (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm) the claims. I've noticed that a lot of these space-hoax, alien-hunting wackos live in the southwest U.S. Is the lack of humidity hazardous to human sanity? Or is peyote just a lot more common?

Then there are always the jokers (http://batesmotel.8m.com/) that swear there was never any moon landing. The sad thing is that NASA has actually felt the need to rebut (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm) the claims. I've noticed that a lot of these space-hoax, alien-hunting wackos live in the southwest U.S. Is the lack of humidity hazardous to human sanity? Or is peyote just a lot more common?

Haha, yeah, those people are off their rockers.

Oh, it's most likely the peyote... Among other select drugs.

Everyone knows the earth isn't flat. It's hollow!
http://thehollowearthinsider.com/news/editor.php

This looks like a joke to me. Has anyone else tried clicking the link to the flat earth society given?

Hoax.

Further proof that people will argue anything. Kind of like all the debates on Nation States.

This looks like a joke to me. Has anyone else tried clicking the link to the flat earth society given?

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.

http://factualmaterial.com/flatearthfucks.htm

Enlightening. Just shows that you don't need religion to be a blithering idiot.
]
My guess is that this guy doesn't get a joke when he sees it... or maybe he is making a joke himself...

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.

Wow. That site is more frustrating than the joke site.

My guess is that this guy doesn't get a joke when he sees it... or maybe he is making a joke himself...

It would be nice to believe that Flat Earthers are joking, however, I have had classes at post graduate level from an intelligent, highly educated lecturer in medieval philosophy, who, despite being otherwise apparently of sound mind, genuinely believes that the world is flat. It is not always a joke.

Wow. That site is more frustrating than the joke site.

Whoa. Seriously... It is.

Whoa. Seriously... It is.

Head-slapping goodness.

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.
And it is so ludicrous, one does wonder as to whether it's a joke as well!
Here's one of their arguments:
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"?
*shakes head* at the sheer inanity of the above statement.

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.

Holy Moose. It just goes to show, you really don't require any brain cells at all to make a website.

Another gem:

And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface.

How dare you attack my beliefs!!?? Round Earth is just a theory! I don't want it taught to my kids as fact! It's an abridgement of my 1st Amendment rights!

Then there are always the jokers (http://batesmotel.8m.com/) that swear there was never any moon landing.

Was there a moon landing? Any proof of that from an objective source? I don't think so... So it's all a matter of 'believing', isn't it. Some people do, some others don't. The actual question is "why". And the most interesting at that... :cool:

Another gem:

*shakes head in disgust*

Some people... I just don't know...

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.

Yes, but even those people give me the notion that what they're putting forward is a big joke...you know, the kind that the straight-man comedians use.

Was there a moon landing? Any proof of that from an objective source? I don't think so... So it's all a matter of 'believing', isn't it. Some people do, some others don't. The actual question is "why". And the most interesting at that... :cool:

*sigh* Occam's Razor, for crying out loud...

Was there a moon landing? Any proof of that from an objective source? I don't think so... So it's all a matter of 'believing', isn't it. Some people do, some others don't. The actual question is "why". And the most interesting at that... :cool:

You can see the laser reflector panels left on the Moon's surface near each landing site - all you need to verify this is a suitable laser and a telescope.

It's been done many times. I suggest you try it out - the reflectors are only at the Apollo landing sites.

Was there a moon landing? Any proof of that from an objective source? I don't think so... So it's all a matter of 'believing', isn't it. Some people do, some others don't. The actual question is "why". And the most interesting at that... :cool:
The "evidence" presented by the people who disbeleive in a moon landing has been debunked repeatedly. Want independant confirmation? Check to see if the US flag is flying on the moon. If any nation really doubted the US claims they could easily build a powerfull telescope, perhaps mounted on a satelite, and check for themselves.

The link given is a fake. The real Flat earth Society (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) does exist however.

Thier disclaimer rules!

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.


:D

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt.

You know, I couldn't stop laughing.

And the do provide their own evidence page:


<This page is currently under construction. Please come back when we have our act together.>

*sigh* Occam's Razor, for crying out loud...

What does William of Ockham's razor have to do with this?

And I was just pulling your leg people. Not one of you has answered the most important question, though: why isn't there reliable evidence from an objective source? I don't exactly doubt the moon-landing - but I do know that, in history, similar 'news' has been spread for propagandistic reasons. So it's not automatically "conspiracy theory" to have a sense of criticism in these matters.

But is clearly visible that the horizon is a circle. I mean, you can actually see the roundess with your own eyes whilst standing on the ground. Of course, creationists aren't far off them for the same sort of reasons.

What does William of Ockham's razor have to do with this?

And I was just pulling your leg people. Not one of you has answered the most important question, though: why isn't there reliable evidence from an objective source? I don't exactly doubt the moon-landing - but I do know that, in history, similar 'news' has been spread for propagandistic reasons. So it's not automatically "conspiracy theory" to have a sense of criticism in these matters.
Whispering Legs provided evidence, and I provided a method to find more evidence.

There have been a few theories in the 20th century:

1) The earth is flat.

2) We live on the outside of a hollow round earth.

3) We live on the inside of a hollow round earth. (The Nazis believed this, LOL)

4) The earth is a circle on a two-dimensional plane.

5) The earth is cylindrical and hollow

6) The earth is cylindrical and not hollow

7) The earth does not exist.

One of them is the truth. I ought to know, after all I invented the Earth.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Another theory:

The Earth's land is a concave bubble, and surrounding that "bubble" is rock.

Makes me want to change species.

Another theory:

The Earth's land is a concave bubble, and surrounding that "bubble" is rock.

Makes me want to change species.Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Must have come from Io like all those other crackpot theories. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Must have come from Io like all those other crackpot theories. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
It's not as wacky as it would initially seem. An Egyptian mathematician named Mostafa Abdelkader worked out mathematically how to invert the laws of physics and make it all work on paper. No concievable experiment can disprove it because the hollow earth and the commonly accepted earth model would both appear identical to people living on them.

What does William of Ockham's razor have to do with this?

And I was just pulling your leg people. Not one of you has answered the most important question, though: why isn't there reliable evidence from an objective source? I don't exactly doubt the moon-landing - but I do know that, in history, similar 'news' has been spread for propagandistic reasons. So it's not automatically "conspiracy theory" to have a sense of criticism in these matters.
It's almost a proof by contradiction in this case. There are nine living astronauts that haven't cracked and leaked out the fact that the landings were faked. There are 800 pounds of rocks that couldn't have come from earth. But the biggest piece of "proof" comes from the Soviets. We were in direct competition with them for years. If there was any chance that we did not do the landings, they would have been on us like Democrats on Tom DeLay.

It's not as wacky as it would initially seem. An Egyptian mathematician named Mostafa Abdelkader worked out mathematically how to invert the laws of physics and make it all work on paper. No concievable experiment can disprove it because the hollow earth and the commonly accepted earth model would both appear identical to people living on them.

Seismic waves don't propogate through hollow mediums, ergo the Earth cannot be hollow.

Your Egyptian dude sounds like he is just wrong

It's not as wacky as it would initially seem. An Egyptian mathematician named Mostafa Abdelkader worked out mathematically how to invert the laws of physics and make it all work on paper. No concievable experiment can disprove it because the hollow earth and the commonly accepted earth model would both appear identical to people living on them.

Show me of what you speak.

Seismic waves don't propogate through hollow mediums, ergo the Earth cannot be hollow.

Your Egyptian dude sounds like he is just wrong
Orbital mechanics depend on a certain amount of mass, too. Heck, just having gravity depends on mass. Without looking at the Egyptian guy's proofs, it sounds kinda weak.

Hmmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Must have come from Io like all those other crackpot theories. ;)

It related to the concept of the Dyson Sphere, wherein the "sun" is basically a small star hanging dead center in the middle of a giant hollow sphere. In theory, in such a universe, you would be capable of building an extremely powerful telescope and look across the vast internal reaches and see people on the other side. Sort of like if I looked out my window with a telescope and saw France. ~smirk~



Though, personally, I think all of this Hollow Earth/Flat Earth nonsense is distracting us from the important issues. I speak, of course, of the brave men and women who struggle to free us from lunar tyranny:

http://stu.wccnet.org/~bwells/gdt200/cabum1.html

http://www.netreach.net/~nhojem/moon.htm

Seismic waves don't propogate through hollow mediums, ergo the Earth cannot be hollow.

Your Egyptian dude sounds like he is just wrong
We live on the inside of the sphere. The outside is rock. If you try to drill through, his math has you comming back in on the other side of the sphere. Even noted skeptics like Martin Gardner have conceeded that it can't be falsified by any observation or experiment. I suggest you look it up. Martin Gardner's book "On the Wild Side" has a chapter dealing with it.

We live on the inside of the sphere. The outside is rock. If you try to drill through, his math has you comming back in on the other side of the sphere. Even noted skeptics like Martin Gardner have conceeded that it can't be falsified by any observation or experiment. I suggest you look it up. Martin Gardner's book "On the Wild Side" has a chapter dealing with it.

Um, what about traveling to the moon? What about sending probes (such as Voyager and Voyager II) past our solar system? How does a small inner space correlate to the observed vast outer space?

How long ago was Martin Gardner's book written? If it was before such space missions and probes, I could see the concession. But now, we do have evidence by observation to contradict the theory (unless there's some part of the math or physics that I'm missing. If so, please elaborate).

We live on the inside of the sphere. The outside is rock. If you try to drill through, his math has you comming back in on the other side of the sphere. Even noted skeptics like Martin Gardner have conceeded that it can't be falsified by any observation or experiment. I suggest you look it up. Martin Gardner's book "On the Wild Side" has a chapter dealing with it.
The weakness seems to be that only the Geometry has ever been transformed. In my mind, photos from space are pretty good evidence the horizon is convex and not concave. The Physics have never been transformed. Advocates of a hollow earth seem to imply that because the transformed geometry is "simpler" it's better. A model is what you make it. If you only do the easy steps, anything will be simpler.

It related to the concept of the Dyson Sphere, wherein the "sun" is basically a small star hanging dead center in the middle of a giant hollow sphere. In theory, in such a universe, you would be capable of building an extremely powerful telescope and look across the vast internal reaches and see people on the other side. Sort of like if I looked out my window with a telescope and saw France. ~smirk~



Though, personally, I think all of this Hollow Earth/Flat Earth nonsense is distracting us from the important issues. I speak, of course, of the brave men and women who struggle to free us from lunar tyranny:

http://stu.wccnet.org/~bwells/gdt200/cabum1.html

http://www.netreach.net/~nhojem/moon.htmDuring WWII, the Nazis believed that they lived on the inside of a hollow planet. Therefore, they reasoned that if they used really long range cameras, they could pick up pictures of America across the world. They didn't have many photographs of enemy activities, but they ended up with a lot of pictures of the sky, though. :p :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Irrational Universe

Um, what about traveling to the moon? What about sending probes (such as Voyager and Voyager II) past our solar system? How does a small inner space correlate to the observed vast outer space?

How long ago was Martin Gardner's book written? If it was before such space missions and probes, I could see the concession. But now, we do have evidence by observation to contradict the theory (unless there's some part of the math or physics that I'm missing. If so, please elaborate).
As you travel away from the perimeter of the sphere the speed of light slows down and you shrink. That accounts for travel through the sphere. The book was written after space travel.

I'm no mathematician. If you want to know more about it, look up the book. On the Wild Side by Martin Gardner.

The weakness seems to be that only the Geometry has ever been transformed. In my mind, photos from space are pretty good evidence the horizon is convex and not concave. The Physics have never been transformed. Advocates of a hollow earth seem to imply that because the transformed geometry is "simpler" it's better. A model is what you make it. If you only do the easy steps, anything will be simpler.
The physics of Abdelkader's hollow earth are actually horribly complex, not simpler. Gardener uses it as an example of why occam's razor is important. While both Abdelkader's hollow model and the commonly accepted model work, the hollow model is so monstrously complex that occam's razor rules it out.

As you travel away from the perimeter of the sphere the speed of light slows down and you shrink. That accounts for travel through the sphere. The book was written after space travel.

I'm no mathematician. If you want to know more about it, look up the book. On the Wild Side by Martin Gardner.

Hmm?

I thought it was E=MC^2 .

So, as C (the speed of light) decreases, if E (energy) stays the same, M (mass) would have to increase. Why would that make you get smaller?


Well, since I haven't read the book I guess I can't really argue the points, so I'll just say Occam's Razor is good enough for me. ;)

Hmm?

I thought it was E=MC^2 .

So, as C (the speed of light) decreases, if E (energy) stays the same, M (mass) would have to increase. Why would that make you get smaller?


Well, since I haven't read the book I guess I can't really argue the points, so I'll just say Occam's Razor is good enough for me. ;)
Sorry, I'm not a physicist or a mathematician. I'm going on Gardner's word. He's a skeptic, and has written books about Math and books which debunk pseudoscience, so I figgure it's on the level.

Everyone knows the earth isn't flat. It's hollow!
http://thehollowearthinsider.com/news/editor.php
I say it is flat, hollow, has four corners, and is pentagonal.

The physics of Abdelkader's hollow earth are actually horribly complex, not simpler. Gardener uses it as an example of why occam's razor is important. While both Abdelkader's hollow model and the commonly accepted model work, the hollow model is so monstrously complex that occam's razor rules it out.

Interestingly enough, the proponents of the geocentric model of the universe were really good at coming up with mathematical models that supported them. These models were, of course, horribly complex as more and more evidence to the contrary poured in. The orbits became insane shapes and the math became unbearable. But they were able to hold on to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe for a while longer.

I can't recall the link, but there's a group of people who's goal is to have Humanity die off by voluntary extinction. They plan on doing this by having everyone stop reproducing. I believe the reason they stated they wished to do this is to return the earth to a more sustainable atomosphere, or something to that effect. If I find the link, I'll post it.

I can't recall the link, but there's a group of people who's goal is to have Humanity die off by voluntary extinction. They plan on doing this by having everyone stop reproducing. I believe the reason they stated they wished to do this is to return the earth to a more sustainable atomosphere, or something to that effect. If I find the link, I'll post it.
It's the Church of Euthanasia.
http://teutonia.mur.at/coe02.gif

Another gem:
The atmosphere is a fluid. You're confusing "fluid" with "liquid".

Incidentally, while the guy who started The Flat Earth Society was serious, now it's just a joke organization. AFter the death of the founder and his wife, no one in the organization actually believes the Earth is flat.

Further proof that people will argue anything. Kind of like all the debates on Nation States.
No they won't! What kind of biased opinion is that?
Humph! *folds arms and pouts*

The "evidence" presented by the people who disbeleive in a moon landing has been debunked repeatedly. Want independant confirmation? Check to see if the US flag is flying on the moon. If any nation really doubted the US claims they could easily build a powerfull telescope, perhaps mounted on a satelite, and check for themselves.
I recommend "Capricorn One", the movie, for all interested.....
;)

I find that most theorists that go against what is proven are either sorta correct like Columbus(the earth is round, but that's not India you've visited) or complete dumbasses who were either drunk/stoned at the time, don't exist, are just trying to be the best assholes they can be, or have mental conditions named after them.

The flat earth theory may not be valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is spherical. Personally, I like this theory (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo1/theory.htm)

This guy gives Californians a bad name!!! I wouldn't call him a hippie; I'd just call him moronic. :headbang:
~I am from California, by the way.

Him and the people he critizies are very much alike.

The flat earth theory may not be valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is spherical. Personally, I like this theory (http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo1/theory.htm)
If you're being pedantic, I believe the correct term is 'oblique geoid'

I say it is flat, hollow, has four corners, and is pentagonal.Wow. Guess what, you're right. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The flat earth theory may not be valid, but that doesn't necessarily mean the earth is spherical. Personally, I like this theoryIf you're being pedantic, I believe the correct term is 'oblique geoid'It can be disproved, as it uses centrifugal force as a chief tenet. Centrifugal force does not exist.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe