1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: self fulfilling prophecy???

« on: March 09, 2007, 01:12:58 PM »

The FE sun has an altitude of 3000 Miles, or 4827m. (Odly enough, this would mean that the peak of Mt Everest is actualy 4.0 km ABOVE the FE Sun...)

I'd advise you to think about that. The measured height of an object on Earth is greater than the supposed altitude of the Sun. This means that either A) The sun is not 3000 miles above the Earth's Surface or B) The Conspiracy has hidden the actual height of this, and many other mountains with peaks greater than 4.8 km.

I have little doubt which one of these you'll choose, despite the logical problems it will produce.


And don't try to avoid the issue of Force's relation to acceleration. Do you accept newton's laws or not?

Wow, you're a bigger idiot than the previous poster. I'd suggest that you also take a basic Community College class, but unfortunately I don't believe any Community College teaches basic arithmetic. You'll have to live your life with that profound ignorance, I'm afraid.

Tom, you think the Earth is flat.  If I had to choose between the two I think a slight slip up in a calculation would be much better than a solid believe that we live on a disc.
Funny how this big conspiracy theory has hundreds of books written about it with proper calculations and experiments, but 1 book from 200 years ago says otherwise and you decide to stick to that one.  Despite the fact that it's experiments can't be reproduced with the same results.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: self fulfilling prophecy???

« on: March 09, 2007, 09:17:38 AM »

Yes, the acceleration between objects that is a fundamental property of the Universe.  Also called "Gravity".  Which FE theory is pretty unclear on, you say that there is no gravity, then go on to state that the stars and moon have gravity, but the Earth does not.  Then you use the concept of gravity (In the traditional sense) to fill the holes in your theory, despite previously showing that you belive that there is no gravity (again. In the traditional sense).

Gravity being used as the force between all matter, not this lovely selective gravity that FE seems to use.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: self fulfilling prophecy???

« on: March 09, 2007, 08:39:46 AM »

Yea, unfortunatly not all FE supporters are outright stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bend_light For reference.

However they still can't explain why exactly this magically causes all of these optical illusions.  They can only state a theory the could work in their favour, and then think that they have proved their point without any actual evidence.
And btw, I thought that you FE guys didn't believe in gravity (in the traditional sense anyways).  Care to enlighten me?  Is it the gravity from the shadow object that is warping the my light rays, because I was pretty sure that the Earth didn't have any gravity according to you.  Gravity in this sense refering to the force of attraction between objects.  Also as an add on question, has anybody proposed any theories as to why exactly the Earth has no gravity, yet the stars and the moons do? ... So easy to punch holes right through all of your theories.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)

« on: March 08, 2007, 03:38:55 PM »

Thanks for the backup Kasroa.  I just assumed that everybody here would know at least the basics of what a railway is.  I suppose that when you are dealing with people who believe the Earth is flat, you have to explain every little detail.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:55:12 PM »

"If they were going straight on a round Earth, wouldn't it start going straight out into the sky? It's like a tangent line."

Yea, but do you really think that laying track is a science.  You fit two pieces together and preso a railway, small deviations between interconnecting pieces will occur naturally.  Do you realize how small of a curvature you would notice over the distace of the length of a rail (If it were bent to fit Earth's curvature).  It would be so small that we could just call it negligable and make it straight.

EDIT: Funny Aside:
Consider " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Do you think that the "engineer" of this "track" had to take into acount "Earth's curvature".  If you watch the video it becomes apparant how a curve would be made from straight lines in real world applications (railroad).  The straight pieces that were layed would naturally stick perpendicular to the ground, which over distance would vary with respect to where you started, in angle that is.
I realize that this is by no means a good example, just one that I feel many people could relate to and gain insight from.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Height of the Ice Wall

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:41:16 PM »

Water splashing up to the top of the wall. It's just speculation, but seeing as eventually water would probably splash above the wall sometimes, that water would be frozen due to the extreme cold, and thus it can be justly presumed it's SOMEWHERE around 150 feet.

~D-Draw

Really.  Well although your explanation seems sound, I would like to know from precisely which region from within your ass that you pulled that number out of.
Specific link, with valid calculations only please.  No read faq, book, or listen to this abundance of conjecture.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Consult FAQ

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:36:55 PM »

Isn't it really a shame though.. Most people here prefer to hide behind the glorious faq, rather than go out on a limb and actually give a specific reference, quote or explaination.   Seems to me that actual explanations are only provided by RE advocates, while FE supports will respond with

Read the Faq
Read the Book
If you don't understand the above, then your mind is not large enough to wrap around our theory.  But don't worry.. Just take our word for it.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:33:55 PM »

So explain why the bridge doesnt slope but the height of the supports differ?

You will have to prove that the bridge does not slope and that the height of the supports differ.

When promoting his product an engineer will say all sorts of outlandish things about his product, stretching the truth. Knowing that no one will ever push his design to the limit, or call him out on his claims, he is free to fabricate an approximation of details and specs. It is for this reason that in studies hard drives fall below the advertised storage space, and why engines fall short by a few degrees of its advertised miles per gallon.

It's east to claim something. It's quite another to prove it.

Yes, and it's another thing to disprove something.  Just because an engineer can claim something false as the truth, doesn't mean that all claims made by all engineers are false.  You argument adds no credit to the debate, you have not proved that statement is false.  It is claimed as the truth, and is easily referenced from multiple sources.  Although, perhaps not the best idea, most people will find these statements to be true unless otherwise proven false.  Innocent until proven guilty?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:29:52 PM »

Well then the websites are part of the conspiracy, anyone can make a website telling lies... no please dont say this website is one of them

Anyone can make a website telling lies, such as this for instance but the fact is, anyone can measure the difference, so 1) Go prove they are wrong or 2) be quiet.

ive said this many times now u retarded illiterate RE noobs, its all been proven already in earth: not a globe, why are u telling me to do the experiments and report back? theyve been done already and the results are in the book

So your telling me that you are willing to accept the results of somebody else as absolute gospel, despite the many obvious counter-examples (Which you refuse to even consider).. Tsk tsk.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Okay you guys are wrong

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:10:29 PM »

i completely agree....its just so ridiculous that this notion is true.......
you realise that the founder of this belief thought that the sun was 32 miles in diameter?
and also the moon.......he also believed that the stasr were as far away as san fransisco is to boston!

i just thought, if they believe the sun is just 32 miles in diameter, surely, if u got in a helicopter and go a few miles into the sky, the sun would appear much much larger. it does get bigger as u get closer, but the further away something is, the slower it'll appear to grow

if the sun was 32 miles in diameter, it would get huge very quickly if u get closer by a few miles

this logically shows the sun is much further away and much larger


don't believe me??? u can easily do simple experiments to prove it

It does get biiger, idiot. But you can't get higher than 60 000 feat because of the atheist communist US conspiracy governemtn.

Actually, yes although it does get bigger, he is right assuming that its rate of growth should be much bigger than it appears to be.  But, rest assured this must be some sort of optical illusion, perhaps light refraction.. Right?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 4 questions for you flat earthers

« on: March 08, 2007, 01:07:19 PM »

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

If you wanted your Faq to be taken more seriously, this would not be there...