631

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites

« on: February 25, 2008, 02:14:38 PM »

No, they are not necessarily balloons, but just pseudollites.

Just what is a pseudollites if it is not a satellite?   I have viewed the international space station many times in the last few weeks.  It arrives at precisely the predicted time and appears to travel at an incredible speed.  Some amateurs take pictures of it with their large telescopes:

http://www.astrospider.com/
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2007/08/12/international_space_station_and_endeavou
http://www.astronomycamerasblog.com/2007/10/16/

Fast, Small, Possibly LTA, flying devices.

While its concievable that they can float and appear to be satalites, they still travel way faster than an LTA craft can. To have that kind of propulsion, they have to have an engine of significant weight (no LTA engine). They also have to have enough mass not to be affected by high winds at that altitude.

632

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 09:32:32 AM »

Right the flat earth infinite model.  You quoted

At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.

In which me and Einstein were discussing the infinite flat earth model.

Yeah, but I am not refering to the infinite earth model, I was just wondering how FE expalins asteroids and the like. Its not the same as the infinite model, is it?

633

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 08:26:11 AM »

In the infinite earth model, which I thought was what we were discussing.

I was inquiring about the FET.

634

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 08:04:51 AM »

They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.

The RE model shows them as being extra solar (the ones with massive orbits) being affected by gravity of planets (which would mean gravity exists and the planets follow the RE model).

Also not sure if Charlie has anything to do with it. He couldn't explain how people can observe asteroids with great detail. Its a little more than frogs raining down. I can see a small relation but he couldn't explain that with his works.

Gravitation does exist.

I had thought that Fort details in several places meteors, meteorites, falling stars, etc to be from terrestial origins.  I don't have the citations offhand, however. I've got a copy of his works at home, I'll try to remember to give em a look later.

I'd be curious to see what Charlie has to say. Let me know and I can look up his works (I think they're in the public domain by now).

So gravitation towards planets and satelites exists in FET? I thought gravity was the result of us going up?

635

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 07:46:27 AM »

They are either from earth ( See the works of Charles Fort) or they have the same explanation as in RE.

The RE model shows them as being extra solar (the ones with massive orbits) being affected by gravity of planets (which would mean gravity exists and the planets follow the RE model).

Also not sure if Charlie has anything to do with it. He couldn't explain how people can observe asteroids with great detail. Its a little more than frogs raining down. I can see a small relation but he couldn't explain that with his works.

636

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 07:20:54 AM »

No, it doesn't mean that.

Can FET explain them?

637

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Why aliens wouldn't attack

« on: February 25, 2008, 07:18:59 AM »

There are nice bits of America like NYC

When I think of "smells like hobo urine" and mugger, I hardly think of "nice".

Its actually quite nice. I thought it would be dirtier than it was since I see it alot on TV. But it smelled fine... except for fish markets, and the South Street Seaport.

638

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth special?

« on: February 25, 2008, 07:17:15 AM »

At least the area in which the earth resides, yes.

Does that mean you don't believe in comets/asteroids/other celestial bodies?

639

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Why aliens wouldn't attack

« on: February 25, 2008, 07:10:39 AM »

America is better than Britain if you're retarded. There are nice bits of America like NYC and California which are ruined by places like Alabama.

Oh, and I thought you were Iraqi, Saddam? must have been a slip of the tongue, right? You're not really an American pretendiong to be Saddam H...

Saddam loves 'merica. Its the only free country in the world! ...except for Canada... and some parts of europe... and all of the UK... oh and pretty much every other country in the world... .

Btw, we Canadians refer to you Americans as yanks (well, not all of us, some of us do) as a harmless nickname. Much like canuck is.

640

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something I heard months and months ago

« on: February 25, 2008, 06:54:51 AM »

Wouldn't space travel be possible on a FE model if the moon was a sphere and had gravity?

Yeah it would be. At least, thats what a few articles I've read have said. It mentions it on Wikipedia as well.

641

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Earth

« on: February 23, 2008, 12:34:22 PM »

By good chance do you mean, say 50%?  25%? 13%? 6%? Under 1%? Under 10^-10%?


We haven't observed many things modern science holds to exist.  Gravitons.  Imaginary time.  etc. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "they are probably constant" but taking a guess at what you mean, by what basis do you make this assumption?  The Copernican principle? Please.  It has no basis except misusing the  mathematical concept of induction.


However, lets agree to disagree. 

I don't mind agreeing to that.

642

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Earth

« on: February 23, 2008, 11:14:13 AM »

Define "a good chance".  As previously mentioned the laws of physics may have been radically different.  How do things we see and observe now, in our tiny tiny small frame of view and time frame say anything about this?

The link I gave already gives examples within our small view of the universe that disagree.  And also within the theory itself which disagrees with itself.

By a good chance, I mean they're probably constant in most places if not all. While we certainly don't know any of this for a fact, there is observations that we can make that allow us to make assumptions. I don't believe that anything is contstant, and that anything is really possible (Even a flat earth). But from observations, comes truth, as far as we can understand it.

So to summarize, since we'e never observed an infinite anything in existance, it means that it probably doesn't exist. Or if it does, its extremely rare.

643

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Earth

« on: February 23, 2008, 09:38:16 AM »

Its an educated guess based off the fact that gravitation does not decrease with altitude.

Heres a site with a few of the many many problems, including internal inconsistencies, with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

We haven't witnessed the beginning of the universe up close either, it should be noted.  How is it any more educated?

Its based on a great number of things. Things we've seen in the universe, and things that repeat themselves, which generally means it has a good chance of being true in another instance.

644

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Infinite Earth

« on: February 23, 2008, 09:10:59 AM »

Okay, I think we all can agree that a infinite earth is impossible if the big bang is true.
And, the big bang IS true, because here is the evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

While I accept the big bang as truth, we simply do not have exact proof, so I must agree that it is a guess (Though a very educated one). Having said that, an infinite earth seems to be like an uneducated guess since we've never witnessed infinity close up (well, we can't, really), so we cannot prove that infinite anything can exist... plus we don't know what it looks like cause we can't

645

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Continental drift and earthquakes

« on: February 22, 2008, 04:43:53 PM »

Wait. huge chunks of land, floating on a bed of molten rock...and you can't see any forces capable of instigating continental drift? hoo boy.... Interestingly, here's what the earth would have looked like 270 million years ago if continental drift followed RE patterns

You talking to me? Cause I didn't say that. However what I DID say is that aside from the normal forces causing continental drift (Friction among other things) are a few forces that don't jive with the FE model. So i am asking about it .

646

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Problems

« on: February 22, 2008, 12:53:20 PM »

Have you already forgotten the last thread we had about this? It's in my sig, the proof thread, for all who are interested. What happened was we found flight logs, and found this out, to which Tom ingeniously responded that there must be two way jet streams travelling at approximately 2000 MPH to make things work. Incredible!

Its perfectly feasable. I mean, you couldn't POSSIBLY notice the intertia you'd experience at those speeds .

647

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Continental drift and earthquakes

« on: February 22, 2008, 12:22:34 PM »

RE's gravity varies depending on the distance you are from the core, FE's does not (or should not if I am right about FE gravity theory).  But more importantly, many of the theories involve the moon's gravitational influence (which would mean that FE's gravity goes out the door, would it not?).

And there is also the motion of the earth spinning.


I admit it doesn't have alot of empirical data, but that can be said about alot of things. Heck, I can't find much empirical data pointing to a flat earth.

648

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Continental drift and earthquakes

« on: February 22, 2008, 11:04:57 AM »

Well for instance, what reason would these plates have to move on a motionless (Except up apparently) plate of rock?

"There are essentially two types of forces that are thought to influence plate motion: friction and gravity."

Well, 2 points on that:

1) FE's model explains gravity as a force pulling us downward as a result of the earth moving up, is it not? That would mean that there would be no accountable lateral motion.

2) Many have theorized that external forces have a part to play as well. One such case is mentioned in the this wikipedia article as "External Forces": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plates

649

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Continental drift and earthquakes

« on: February 22, 2008, 10:50:19 AM »

Are there any explanations for continental drift, and earthquakes? Surely there are no tectonic plates in the FE model.

Why would the explanations be any different?

And why are there no tectonic plates?

Well for instance, what reason would these plates have to move on a motionless (Except up apparently) plate of rock?

650

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites

« on: February 22, 2008, 10:46:02 AM »

No, they are not necessarily balloons, but just pseudollites.

Care to explain that further? How are they suspended? How do they travel so fast?

The issues it would need to overcome is that it'd have to be high up (lots of people in the same hemisphere can see them at the same time) and they need to travel fast (ballons will not do and eventually fail. They'd also not keep their consistent orbits)

651

Flat Earth Q&A / Continental drift and earthquakes

« on: February 22, 2008, 10:28:08 AM »

Hey FErs. Got a few questions for you.

Are there any explanations for continental drift, and earthquakes? Surely there are no tectonic plates in the FE model.