1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why no round Earth?

« on: March 22, 2007, 07:44:50 PM »

I wonder the opposite. Why do flat earther consider the RE as invalid? Just imagine that the REer here are honnest and not part of the conspiracy.

I have yet to see ANY REer who is honest. All REers do on this board is attack, insult, make death threats, and mock. They have no theories or ideas. How does one refute what does not exist?

How is one so hypocritical?
You blindly follow what does not exist. You present no actual facts, just make up things as you go to fit what you want. You have no room to speak, Franc.

Explanation of Atomosphereic density, by RE:
1) Near-constant velocity
2) Gravity
3) Archimedes' Principle

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 22, 2007, 07:39:44 PM »

The News groups in our areas predict the forecast too well for it to all be a conspiracy. If it were, they'd not be able to be so accurate for so many years. They predict weather several days ahead before there are any signs of it, such as storms sweeping through our area. Last year, a week before we had a major storm in the Midwest... they predicted it. No other states, nor Canada, was having any problems with such a storm. Within 24 hours of their predicted date, over 500,000 people were without power due to a massive storm ravaging our area.

Franc, you're also the only FE'er that supports all of these made-up-on-the-spot claims that you make.
I also like how you, at first, said that the government trades with people on the other side of the world, or how you said that people have been to the other sides and claimed to have documents of the people who had done so, then now you say this surface of the earth is infinite. If it were infinite, you couldn't get to the other side.

Yeah, I knew you made up the idea that you had those journals of explorers, then claimed that if you showed them to us, you'd be arrested as a terrorist.
Now you say this surface of the earth is an infinite plane. Yeah, because those two arguements go together. Your ideas change with every new arguement!

3

Flat Earth Debate / GPS again.

« on: March 22, 2007, 07:28:25 PM »

Hey personally I think it is pretty dumb basing scientific belief on a book written 2000 years ago, but seeing as you guys do, how come your atlas of the world doesn't have four corners?  The bible clearly states that it does

Ever hear of "Not taking the Bible entirely literally?" Figure of speech, boy.

Explain to us how a GPS doesn't require the transmitter to be in orbit.
I don't know the exact components of a GPS. Hell, I know very little about any sort of true electronics, except for a few parts.
If you're trying to say that the government just has the certain points mapped out to make people think that with a GPS they can find their position on a round earth rather than a flat one, prove it. (How would the government organizing such a thing even be worth it? I mean, if it's slightly inaccurate at all, the military uses these things... why would the government issue something to itself that it knew was flawed?)
Sorry, how did GPS come into this anyway?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 09:08:45 PM »

Because of the acceleration, and the earth pushing up on the air, the air would be given kinetic force by the earth. This would slowly increase it's temperature, so on and so forth.
We all burn and die.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: THE BIG QUESTION

« on: March 19, 2007, 09:07:34 PM »

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 09:00:24 PM »

You're confusing acceleration with velocity. To accelerate, a force must be applied. Since the earth, in an FE view, is constantly accelerating, there must be a constantly added force.
EDIT:
I should have said "Increased velocity" not increased acceleration.
I used the wrong words/mixed them up.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 08:40:46 PM »

Combustion was the wrong word.
Pressure OR temperature would continue to build because of increased acceleration.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 07:24:49 PM »

Gases don't like to be compact to the same degree that liquids and solids do. They do not retain any manner of surface tension because they do not form lingering polar bonds with other molecules that make up the gas. Surface tension in a gas will only stop one, maybe two molecules. One of those impacting it would break the bond and the surface tension would be once again lost.

I do understand. To accelerate something, you have to constantly apply a force to it. The earth recieves that force, and would constantly give it to the air and heat the air constantly, since the force applied to the earth is also constant.
This will result in one of two things:
1) The gas will expand, regardless of surface tension, and flow over the edge.
2) The gas will rise in temperature until it combusts/turns into plasma.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 06:37:55 PM »

Surface tension... in a gas?
Let me know if you can actually find it. Gases don't like to be compact. They like to spread out. Surface tensions? You can't hardly ever get it because the gases electric fields don't like to link together in a polar way that can actually create a surface tension. Or at least not for long - the kinetic energy of the molecules is much too great.\

The surface tension of water can't survive that force. No way can the surface tension of a gas. Water's surface tension can barely survive a paper-clip resting on it.

If the earth is ever accelerating, the forces on the gases in our atmosphere will be under ever increasing pressure. They would become more and more compact, since the pressure, in this case, is the variable.
Either:
A) The gases would slowly be compressed into the earth until they eventually combusted from being under enough pressure.
B) The air would raise in temperature with the additional kinetic force applied to them by the earth, and raise in temperature until the air itself turned into a plasma. By then, we're fried.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 06:29:15 PM »

Gases are also ever-expanding in a system they have not fully expanded into. With no gravitation to hold them to go over the edge, they will ever expand until they flow over the edge of the earth.

EDIT:
Surface tension is nothing more than polarity. Surface tension of a gas is a relatively weak thing, since few gas molecules are actually together at one time to form any sort of barrier to hold in others.
(Surface Tension in a liquid is easier to come by, because, like in water, the molecules are compacted together, with only some room to move around. They can easily link their electric fields together to created a barrier we call "surface tension."
Gases? Such a thing is rare, because the electric fields are much more spaced out and crowded hardly at all)

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 19, 2007, 06:22:47 PM »

The surface tension of air?
It holds strong over nothing larger than the tip of a hypodermic needle. It will not hold the air in as the Earth accelerates.

If it is constantly accelerating, how is the air not being compacted to the point of combustion, or flowing over the edge of the flat earth and floating off into the void of space?

It doesn't flow off the edge of the Earth because there is a gigantic wall of ice and rock at the edge. It isn't being compacted to the point of combustion because the acceleration isn't high enough to raise it to that kind of pressure, far short of it in fact. If the Earth accelerating at 9.8m/s/s through space could compress air to the point of combustion, so could a stationary Earth with a gravitational constant of 9.8m/s/s. Remember, the effects of a constant acceleration and a gravitational field are locally indistinguishable according to relativity.

Not true. In a flat earth, because of that lack of an actual gravity to hold air to the earth, pressure cannot be readily relieved other than by having the air flow over the sides. However, this would not be entirely possible, because air would become trapped. Sheer inertia and acceleration would cause it to act like the compression phase of a turbojet engine and would combust the air.
In a round earth, with gravity, the air around it is held in so that none escapes, at it, through this acts like a closed system, and pressure is relieved throughout.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 19, 2007, 06:20:38 PM »

Obviously Franc is not a traditional FE'er...

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the ice wall and acceleration

« on: March 18, 2007, 09:02:00 PM »

If it is constantly accelerating, how is the air not being compacted to the point of combustion, or flowing over the edge of the flat earth and floating off into the void of space?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 08:49:45 PM »

As awesome as a movie 300 was, this isn't the place to talk about it.   

Once again:
1) Why doesn't the air flow off the sides of the flat earth? This is the first time I've heard the "The flat earth goes on forever." I believe it was actually Franc that proposed there are people on the other side, at least at some point, for the government to trade with and somehow get money from...
2) Why doesn't the air crush us under the pressure of an ever accelerating earth/combust and burn us all?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:38:37 PM »

RE is not a religion.
If the earth is a disk, actual gravity would have the greatest pull in the center.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:37:19 PM »

Only in a warped mind.
Counter my points or shut up.
Or do you want me to declare victory in this debate, over you, since you no longer are able to counter my pro-RE claims?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:36:11 PM »

You do not follow the same FE beliefs of other FE'ers.
Honestly, you're just a moron.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:35:22 PM »

Seriously, Franc T., Planar, keep to the subject of this thread. If you wish to talk about IP claims, do it elsewhere. This is not the place nor the time.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:32:43 PM »

Sure. Continuance of this subject is not to be made in this thread, as it has no relevance. I will ignore all IP related subjects from here on out, because continuance of their statements are simply to change the subject. I've seen such underhanded tactics used in debates before. You pulled it off rather poorly.

Now. Counter my points I made quite a while ago, or admit defeat.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:31:39 PM »

You're the only FE'er that believes in it, because, if gravity existed, the earth would be a ball, not a disk.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:30:19 PM »

The Ozone layer would drift away as well. It's not a solid, and it'd have nothing to keep it there.
The ozone layer is just a O3 gas layer floating on top of the air. It doesn't actually do enough to keep it in.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:27:08 PM »

My thoughts on intellectual property? What about it?

Your thoughts on my subjects I presented that have relevance?

23

Flat Earth Debate / Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:25:42 PM »

1) Air is a gas. We all know that gases expand until they reach some sort of barrier. In an RE, this barrier is the Ozone layer/gravitational pull. In a Flat Earth...
No barrier. Thusly, air would expand and flow off of the edge of the Flat Earth as it is propelled through the universe. We'd be leaking air... but we arn't!
Explain why we arn't all suffocating.
(If you say the same force that propels us through the universe also keeps it in, you'd be wrong because that force would push the air easier than the Earth, and would take away air from us)

2) If we are accelerating, air pressure would increase rapidly as the Earth would constantly apply more pressure to the air, and would slowly squeeze it - if the air somehow had a way of being held in on the sides. Aircraft's cielings at which they could fly would decrease, and we would slowly be crushed under air pressure. Eventually, the air would be compressed to the point where it would combust, and we'd all die.
Explain why this does not happen, if the Earth is flat.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 04:18:08 PM »

It has no relevance. You are only changing the subject so you do not have to answer mine or deal with the fact that you can't.
 Please. Back on topic.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 18, 2007, 03:52:59 PM »

What is your position on intellectual property?

You're trying to change the subject.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 17, 2007, 10:29:10 PM »

And that's all you choose to counter. Your own pride and none of my questions/comments. No arguement for any of the rest?
Seriously, does that mean you don't know? Or that you know it's all a farse that you've been trying to counter my reason with?

Why do I say you follow it blindly? Most of the time I see your counter for arguements being "Because it's flat" and nothing logical.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: NEWS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

« on: March 17, 2007, 10:17:10 PM »

What has been fabricated?

The ice walls, the lack of gravity, wait check that, Tom said Gravitation exists, but gravity doesn't(you'd think the 2 would be interconnected, but you learn something new everyday I guess), the 7 suns, the spain-sized suns, the lack of ability to see clear across the "flat earth", I could go on and on.

Most of this was NOT fabricated, but learned from my own experience and second-hand accounts. The thing about gravitation, I don't know- ask Tom. I don't see any reason to reject gravity.

Your own experience, eh? So you've been over the Ice-Wall or know people who have?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 17, 2007, 10:15:10 PM »

1) You claim I have been indoctrinated into a false belief system. Could it not be that you are the one indoctrinated into a false belief system? You above all people follow it so blindly.

2) How does not telling the public interfere with them getting money?

3) Tell me how you plan to guard that ice-wall to keep explorers from crossing too far.
Tell me where you plan to base these aircraft and helicopters that will act as an interception force. The amounts needed for a timely response No one has that kind of surplus in their airforce. The United States Air Force doesn't have enough bases for that kind of thing! You can't staff that! You can't make that work! Do you understand how that kind of thing works? You need pilots, then about ten on-base crewman per aircraft, then one mid-air refueler per every squadron or two, then a couple dozen people to service every mid-air refueling aircraft, then you need AWACS, transport aircraft to get the crews from one place to another, replacement parts, et cetera. Then there is the sub-zero temperatures you've got to deal with parts fatiguing even faster... the list is endless. Then you've got to find your enemy, a task which is easier said than done.
Helicopters are even worse, few people, but much more hassle depending on the helo and how long you want to to stay/how for it has to go. Simply put - you can't defend against that with such a trivial idea. You'd need the support of the people. You'd need to indoctrinate most of them into a militia system because your enemy can attack from any side except North, unless they get over the North Pole after bypassing other countries.
Trading technologies with people who must base their technology on a reversed world that moves away from and towards us is illogical, since, after all, you FE'ers say that the earth is accelerating in our direction, "upwards."

You did not answer my question about how people on the other side stay on their side of the Earth, instead of falling as the Earth moves away from them.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: NEWS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

« on: March 17, 2007, 09:39:36 PM »

Guys guess what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The earth has officially been proven round!!! Maybe you should make a round earth society? I wonder why it's taken so long to figure out since this picture has existed since 1972!

Just a holy symbol, a fabrication.

Well I say the idea of a flat earth is a fabrication. Parry, repoiste.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Flat Earth Conspiracy Conspiracy

« on: March 17, 2007, 09:37:34 PM »

1) I can just throw that straight back at you. It's easier to say, too, because the FE'ers are part of a smaller group, in which concealing such a falsity is considerably easier, because there are fewer people willing to strike out against the grain of which they have been taught, which is often done in groups with one main leader. In a smaller group, such subgroups are harder to form.

2) If it is to protect from foreign invasion: Telling the public is a wiser decision. In another thread, I mentioned how the Ice Wall could not be patrolled by the US, Britain, or any of it's allies - combined. India and China combined (politically impossible & racial issues deep rooted in societies), have the manpower to do it. Not the equipment. No one has that capability. The U.S. does not have the military equipment to keep a sustained watch on the "Ice Wall." It has very little that can survive in those temperatures for long.

Trading technologies this way is illogical.
If there are people on the other side with similar techologies that we trade, would not we recieve some of their transmissions due to reflections of the radio waves off of certain objects like satellites? Would News Satellites not know of these places?
(I know I said "negative gravity" but you all say gravity is non-existant.) How do they stay on the ground? I suppose we gave them all giant magnets.