ok, disprove this:

  • 105 Replies
  • 15789 Views
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2009, 08:44:22 AM »
Nope. FE acknowledges gravitation, just not gravity, plus the joke is just that. So my original statement's pretty all-encompassing.

Except sometimes you need "a little bit" of gravity. For the variations in "g" and tides. It even says so in the FAQ.

Using ad hoc selection (and misunderstanding physics completely) is what makes this whole site a joke.

No, there's no such thing as gravity. Read the posts.

Hmm... I wonder if the legendary Flat Earth Wiki (FEW) will be any more informative when (if) it goes live.

Yes. Far, far more.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Taters343

  • Official Member
  • 11963
  • Pope/Tater/Robot with flower girl capabilities!
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2009, 08:45:37 AM »
And how do I help?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2009, 09:01:48 AM »
They have a gravitational pull, yes. But that isn't gravity, it's gravitation.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2009, 09:18:37 AM »
Erm, nope. Newton described gravity, which is magic in a cheap tuxedo, Einstein described gravitation, which is science.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2009, 09:43:16 AM »
Your own ignorance is not a valid debating tactic. Look it up.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2009, 09:46:17 AM »
Gravity and gravitation are different, yes, but closely related cousins. Newton's measurements and formulae are inaccurate enough not to be absolute, but accurate enough to be used casually. For large-scale measurements we utilize Einstein's universal gravitation and special relativity (it's much more precise).

Gravitation, however, does not do much to help FET. If anything, it helps RET, and discounting gravity as a whole while embracing gravitation is a faulty line of logic to take. Gravity was useful for it's time at describing the universe, and is still useful today, unlike the selective force of Dark Energy.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2009, 09:49:39 AM »
That first sentence alone proves you're no physicist. Do you think ID is a valid scientific theory too, a closely related cousin of The Big Bang? Why is the DE selective?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2009, 09:55:11 AM »
That first sentence alone proves you're no physicist. Do you think ID is a valid scientific theory too, a closely related cousin of The Big Bang? Why is the DE selective?

In all fairness I was simplifying my response. Let me rephrase: Gravity and gravitation are significantly different theories in practice and in application while proposing basically and observably similar phenomenon. And intelligent design has nothing to do with the price of eggs, here.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2009, 10:02:15 AM »
Okay, I see why they'd need it in layman's terms, but why do you think the UA is selective?
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2009, 10:14:27 AM »
You'll need to define the acronym UA for me because it's not in my jargon.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2009, 10:28:54 AM »
Universal Acceleration: The FE reason why things fall to Earth.

I'm pretty certain :-\

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2009, 10:32:27 AM »
Yeah, it is, and it's a more accurate term than DE as it probably isn't an energy.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2009, 11:01:32 AM »
ITT: People who haven't read the Gravity sticky.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2009, 11:48:05 AM »
Yeah, it is, and it's a more accurate term than DE as it probably isn't an energy.

Wow. Flat earth hypothesis is so wrong you can't even name things right. What hope is there?

Dark Energy (but its not an energy)
UNiversal Acceleration ( but its not universal)

amiright?

Beside the fact that we call the Earth a globe, and it isn't in either theory?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2009, 03:33:59 PM »
For large-scale measurements we utilize Einstein's universal gravitation and special relativity General Relativity (it's much more precise).
Fixed.

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2009, 07:06:27 PM »
A word of advice: never join a debating team, you will fail miserably.

I would pay good money to watch you stand up infront of a debating team and say "Gentlemen. Please read the FAQ. Also. Fuck off and die. This concludes my argument. Thankyou for listening."

LOL NICELY PUT. I've been reading some of this nonsense and Robosteve clearly think he's a genius for knowing a FAQ exists.

To make my post relevant, what do you explain when you're on an airplane? The earth is clearly round. I'll actually tell you a how-to because I'm so nice.

First, buy a ticket to anywhere on any airline.
Get on the airplane.
Sit next to a window.
(Robo I know you'll say "What if my seating is not there?" Just stfu and sit next to the window okay?)
WATCH THE GROUND WHILE THE AIRPLANE TAKES FLIGHT. Make sure the government doesn't pull a fast one and give you any illusion.
Ok, now you're flying.
Look down.
 :o

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2009, 07:16:51 PM »
LOL NICELY PUT. I've been reading some of this nonsense and Robosteve clearly think he's a genius for knowing a FAQ exists.

To make my post relevant, what do you explain when you're on an airplane? The earth is clearly round. I'll actually tell you a how-to because I'm so nice.

First, buy a ticket to anywhere on any airline.
Get on the airplane.
Sit next to a window.
(Robo I know you'll say "What if my seating is not there?" Just stfu and sit next to the window okay?)
WATCH THE GROUND WHILE THE AIRPLANE TAKES FLIGHT. Make sure the government doesn't pull a fast one and give you any illusion.
Ok, now you're flying.
Look down.
 :o


It's not possible to see any curvature from a commercial airliner. I have travelled by plane many times, and sat next to the window on several occasions. It always looks flat.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2009, 07:28:31 PM »

It's not possible to see any curvature from a commercial airliner. I have travelled by plane many times, and sat next to the window on several occasions. It always looks flat.


Really?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2009, 07:30:53 PM »

Really?

Care to post an image with a horizon that is not clearly obscured by poor visibility?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2009, 07:35:39 PM »

Care to post an image with a horizon that is not clearly obscured by poor visibility?




http://www.flickr.com/photos/34067077@N00/4007941/
This one's looking from a vertical POV. I posted the link because you probably wouldn't have understood what the picture was.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2009, 07:38:06 PM »
Neither of those images you posted were taken from a commercial airliner at cruise altitude, and both of them have obvious lens distortion. As for your link, that is easily explained by light bending upwards according to EA theory.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2009, 07:44:59 PM »
Neither of those images you posted were taken from a commercial airliner at cruise altitude, and both of them have obvious lens distortion. As for your link, that is easily explained by light bending upwards according to EA theory.

Does that matter? It was on the GROUND. Unless you think the ground is somehow part of the government's conspiracy. But I guess you can say that because hell, what haven't you said yet? And lens distortion? LOL OK FUNNY DUDE, I GIVE UP. THE EARTH IS FLAT.


No.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2009, 08:35:19 PM »
Does that matter?

Yes, if you're trying to show that curvature is visible from a commercial airliner.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2009, 11:01:45 PM »
Neither of those images you posted were taken from a commercial airliner at cruise altitude, and both of them have obvious lens distortion. As for your link, that is easily explained by light bending upwards according to EA theory.

Does that matter? It was on the GROUND. Unless you think the ground is somehow part of the government's conspiracy. But I guess you can say that because hell, what haven't you said yet? And lens distortion?
Before you argue further you may want to read this link http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2009, 02:32:58 AM »
Gravity and gravitation are different, yes, but closely related cousins. Newton's measurements and formulae are inaccurate enough not to be absolute, but accurate enough to be used casually. For large-scale measurements we utilize Einstein's universal gravitation and special relativity (it's much more precise).

Gravitation, however, does not do much to help FET. If anything, it helps RET, and discounting gravity as a whole while embracing gravitation is a faulty line of logic to take. Gravity was useful for it's time at describing the universe, and is still useful today, unlike the selective force of Dark Energy.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction may be made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.

This is why the FE'ers says that gravity does not exist.

EDIT: Forgot to quote Wikipedia.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 03:20:23 AM by svenanders »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2009, 03:04:10 AM »
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction may be made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.

Using other people's material without citing your sources is plagiarism.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

svenanders

  • 832
  • I'm always right. If you disagree, you're wrong.
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2009, 03:21:12 AM »
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but a distinction may be made in scientific usage. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the phenomenon by which bodies with mass are attracted to one another, while "gravity" refers specifically to the net force exerted by the Earth on objects in its vicinity as well as by other factors, such as the Earth's rotation.

Using other people's material without citing your sources is plagiarism.

Fixed.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2009, 09:27:55 AM »
Your new avatar is hypnotic.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2009, 12:28:47 PM »
That was a shitty story.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: ok, disprove this:
« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2009, 12:39:51 PM »
I don't think they even know what exeunt means.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>