Slashdot Mirror

You wanna link? http://www.flat-earth.org/

The claims of a round earth are nothing more that a main stream media hype of one guys opinion to try to invoke fear in the general population.

Anyone can single out and focus on one area of the planet and come to a conclusion that would sound devastating if it really did apply to the whole planet.

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows the earth is not at the center of any system. It's beneath everything. Are you unaware that the earth is flat?

From the FAQ:

1. What is the Earth's shape?
The Earth is flat. It is shaped in the form of a pentagon, and thus has five corners.

5. Does the "middle corner" prove that 5=6?
Yes.

9. How long is the edge of the Earth?
The edge of the Earth is infinitely long.

10. Does this mean that the Earth has infinite area?
No, no more than England does. See Benoit Mandelbrot for more information.

13. What about gravity?
Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.
There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

20. Does Idaho exist
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21. What about North Dakota?
That doesn't exist either.

22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?
Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

Is this some joke that I just don't know about, or do people actually believe this bu11$h!t? I mean come now, Idaho and England do not exist, gravity is fictional, and the earth is on the back of a giant turtle?! And here's the kicker, This FAQ was compiled by Lee Harvey Oswald Smith

And another thing (math isn't my srong point so correct me if I am wrong), if the earth was flat and it's edge was infinitely long, how could it's area not be infinite?

Shit, I guess it's time to revoke my membership to the flat earth society

... says the Flat earth society

you talking about this?
in that case i demand american children also have a dedicated hour a week to study even more hilarious this

Every place named Springfield is, in fact, a link to the same place. There is, in reality, only one place in the universe named Springfield, although many places connect to it.

Thompson has spent his career trekking to the far corners of the world to find remote ice fields and then bring back cores drilled from their centers.

That proves it. All this quasi-science about the Earth being round (when anyone can see it's flat) is clearly debunked, when a major scientist finds the planet's corners and brings back from each corner samples of its core.

This gives me hope we'll dispense with that space travel hoax soon, too.

Sciencee may be so limited, but facts are not. I think we may irreconcilably differ on this point. I prefer to think that the whole point of science is to better the condition of mankind.

The whole point of science is to learn in a way which assures, to the best of our ability, that how we think things work is how they actually work. Whether we use that knowledge to better mankind or kill it is entirely up to us. This is where the values of religion can play a beneficial part, but not as long as they are arguing whether or not the science is correct.

These seem to me to be pretty good evidence that more than one approach to the nature of our world should be explored.

There have been many different disciplines which explore our world, all using different techniques. Science has been the most successful discipline to allow us to manipulate our environment and make predictions that can help us. Quite simply, it works very well. That we are able to even have this conversation is a direct result of science.

You seem pretty fond of the biblical arguments though, so tell me what kind of fact you would accept as supporting an intelligent design theory?

No assumptions based on faith and doesn't rely on trying to disprove one theory as proof of another.

Now that I think about it, why the resistance to facts which tend to discredit certain parts of a given theory?

Because, even if they can invalidate the one theory, it does not prove theirs. I can spend all day proving that grass isn't green because a leprachaun painted it. It doesn't prove that chlorophyl makes it green. It only proves that a leprachaun didn't paint it.

Isn't science all about finding that one fact that wipes out or revises an existing theory - requiring us to develop a new one?

Science is about gaining knowledge by collecting evidence to support or refute a theory. You are partly right: disproving invalid theories is a valuable part of science. The problem is that's where most creationists stop. They engage in a false dichotomy: it must either be evolution or creationism. They completely ignore the third, or more, unknown choices. There is no revision of creationism to fit known evidence. It is as it always was forever and ever, amen. The other side of that is their "science" is usually faulty and doesn't really refute the theory at all. Their only aim is to attempt to discredit evolution so they can feel better about believing what they want to. Let me ask you this: what's the difference between creationism and, say, the Flat Earth Society? Here's a group of people, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that continue to believe that the earth is flat and, in fact, shaped like a pentagon. What makes them wrong and creationism right? What in general makes one religious belief more valid than another? How do you choose?

When it comes down to it, the scientific method cannot prove anything, only suggest probable connections that allow us to make predictions.

And manipulate our environment. It cannot absolutely prove anything (except mathematics, but that's a different subject entirely). But the volume of evidence collected through science allows us to be 99.997% sure this is the way it is. And if the .003% turns up, then we revise the theories, conduct new experiments, and it grows. It can, however, absolutely disprove quite a bit.

The reason why people don't like to acknowledge that some opinions have merit and others don't is because that means that someone is wrong, and heaven forbid that anyone is wrong! It might damage their self esteem! *gasp*

It's got more to do with that we have taken "tolerance" to such a level that you can't tell someone he's full of shit, even if he is demonstrably full of shit, without being accused of dismissing his viewpoint out of hand. "Why don't you present both sides?" is the battle-cry of the nutjob whose opinion has no basis in fact yet wants to be treated as equally valid. Ignore the nutjob and you're accused of bias. Well, guess what. It is bias. But it's bias based on the evidence. That kind of bias is good and, in fact, necessary. Would anybody seriously give arguments from the Flat Earth Society equal weight as an argument that the world is round? No. So why do we have to give equal weight to claims that are just as junky?

I often like to joke with people that "All men are created equal" doesn't mean "for all purposes".

The line I like (and I'll be damned if I can remember where I heard it) is "All men are created equal. After that, it's up to them."

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
http://www.flat-earth.org/
www.timecube.com

Humans exist as CUBICS, not entitie s, for the 4 corner stages of rotating human metamorphosis do not occur at the same time for the individual - except for family Cube. You are educated stupid, indoctrinated evil, and can't even acknowledge that a mother and baby are the same age - on opposite corners of a Cubic Creation Principle - for Truth in Opposites contradict a god entity.

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/

www.timecube.com

hehe,

http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.html

shows what you know ;)

yes

actually.... (taken from here)

The Springfield Effect is the effect by which every place named Springfield is, in fact, a link to the same place. There is, in reality, only one place in the universe named Springfield, although many places connect to it.

The Springfield Paradox arises from the following observation: there are many springfields (springfield with a small S shall refer to an external contact point to Springfield, or an observable Springfield) connected to one Springfield; thus they must connect at different angles. (These angles are assumed to be in n-dimensional space for some n>3, as the observed Springfield looks fully three-dimensional from all angles.) There is an infinite number of possible angles at which Springfield can be approached.

However, the name "Springfield" is an Anglo-Saxon name, and thus wholly derived from Anglo-Saxon civilisation. Since Anglo-Saxon civilisation has, for better or worse, reached only a finite area of the universe (a large part of the Earth, the dark side of the moon and possibly the hidden UFO bases on Mars), there can only be a finite number of contact points in the observable universe.

One way around this is to assume that there are other contact points to Springfield, which are named otherwise. The names may be the local cultural equivalents of "Springfield", or not. However, this violates the principle of isonomicity, which may be stated as ipso nomen res ipsa, the name itself is the thing itself, and which is seen as being fundamental to the Springfield theory.

Another model, which has some favour, is the higher-Springfield space model. Here, the observable universe is seen as a three-dimensional hypersurface in an n-dimensional space (n>3). If n4, then the universe divides hyperspace into two regions, as a plane divides three-space; if n>4, this is not the case.

The Springfield effect would hold that this hypersurface is not straight, and is in fact very bent. Springfield is a point where it touches itself several times. Thus, at certain angles from Springfield are the contact points with the observable universe, the springfields. At other angles is just empty n-dimensional hyperspace; if one was to enter that, one would fall through space not comprehensible and probably wreck one's nervous system, albeit enjoying a very interesting trip whilst doing so.

However, hyperspace outside the observable universe need not be empty. There could be other hypersurfaces -- other universes -- there. It is in fact possible that one or more parallel universe touches Springfield at some angle. An implication of this is that if one was to exit Springfield at a particular angle, one might enter a parallel universe. Such a universe may have any number m
Of course, the word "universe" implies unity and uniqueness. Thus, several hypersurfaces in hyperspace cannot each be the universe. However, the three dimensional space which we inhabit is often, perhaps accurately, called the observable universe. Each other such space would be a potential observable universe. By analogy, the n-dimensional space which they all occupy, which contains all potential observable universes may be referred to as the beable universe (pronounced bee-able universe).

Perhaps the reason why Springfield cannot be mapped 100% is because of the springfield paradox

...via the Springfield Paradox, courtesy of the Flat Earth Society.

and some people claim that the earth is flat.

you havent posted on legitimate site. not a single one.

Fanatics will say aliens are just some government coverup like the fake moon landings, etc, etc.

You write that as if you were being profound. Instead, you are being foolish. Change economics to physics and you will see that you sound like a flat-earther. Look around! The earth is obviously not flat. And the socialism that most Friends preach works only on flat earths.
-russ

Some people already believe it, but I'm not sure that Gates & Co. have anything to do with it.

You might be being ironic, but you're right.

Of course, in theory:

- the earth is spherical in shape

These people don't think so

- the earth revolves around the sun

not acording to 1 in 5 americans

- we evolved from lower species

Not according to the xian church.

- energy equals mass times the speed of light squared

Amazingly that's about the least objectable theory you listed.

Umm, I thought this was brought up before, the earth is ROUND. That is all, breaks over.

No it's not

The Flat-Earthers are going to have a field day with this one.

In your heart you know it's flat (This appeals to the Discordian in me.)

So, true. If people were swayed by facts, things like Haldane's Dilemna and irreducible complexity wouldn't be swept under the rug.

Haldane's Dilemma and irreducable complexity aren't so much swept under the rug as they are put back on the toy shelf next to geocentrism and the flat earth.

Obviously, you people haven't heard of the Flat Earth Society...

Universally accepted fact: The Earth is not flat.

Oh wait...

Yeah, it's a joke.

How about we change that to "walking on the sun"? I doubt that will be happening during our lifetimes.

Except that walking on the sun is definitely NOT something that will EVER happen. Period. Curing cancer is something that may or may not happen in our lifetimes. But saying that Cancer will NEVER be cured is like insisting that the world is flat (and there are some morons who even do THAT).

Sorry to disappoint you Karnak, but your analogy is about as useful as a chocolate teapot!

Thanks, I've been wanting to change my sig and you inspired me.

I'll admit that *small* conspiracies do exist, but large ones do not. Try as they may, few rational people believe that the holocost took place. Fewer still believe that the earth is flat.

> Also, the sky is blue, and the Earth is round. Just some other obvious things you might've also missed.

You lie! I just looked out of the window, and the sky is most definitely black. As for your other unsupported claim, I suggest you have a look at the truth and tell me if you can still believe these capitalist lies.

I'm not sure if they were around in the 1800s, but the Flat Earth Society still believes that the earth is flat. :p

In other news, it was discovered that the Earth is round

Tell that to These Folks...

You're a member of the Flat Earth Society aren't you?

Just a conspiracy - just see this page :-)

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Hubble 'Telescope' knows that it really isn't a telescope. Those familiar with the Flat Earth Society should recognize the tell-tale signs of their activities.

For those of you who haven't, I shall explain. When the astronauts are sent to perform 'routine maintenance' on the Hubble 'Telescope,' they are in fact uploading the latest set of imagery that the Hubble 'Telescope' will then allegedly view through its telescope and then download it back to earth. This way, scientists are able to 'discover' things that support their hypothesis and keep the myth of a round earth alive.

Or you'll be first against the wall when they rule the world!

Why do people think hydrogen is so dangerous?

For the same reason other people think the internet is dangerous. And for the same reason there is a "Flat Earth Society" (whose public project's include creating propaganda about life on mars!). And for the same reason Curious George got elected. I could go on....

1. And there are people with wierder ideas than that. Ever hear of
2. The Flat Earth Society ?

Clearly, this is due to the Springfield Effect. They have simply passed through new, undiscovered Springfield locations.

Mr. Teapot can answer all your questions.

Clearly, this is due to the Springfield Effect. They have simply passed through new, undiscovered Springfield locations.

Mr. Teapot can answer all your questions.

viz. flat earthers

Nobody (except a scarce few) believes the world is flat anymore

This seems like a good time to bring up the flat earth society. It turns out there are some very smart people who believe that the earth is flat because it can mathamatically proved, and I don't think that anyone had been able to find flaws in the mathamatical proof. Check it out, I don't think that it is a joke but definitly interesting.

Check out the Flat Earth Society's Mars Project - it's hilarious. :-)

------------------

Some creationists insist ... that the Earth is flat.

but the Earth is Flat!


:)

nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE