1

Flat Earth Debate / Solar Size

« on: February 25, 2008, 11:27:50 AM »

The other thread I posted this in was ignored and others cluttered it so I am dedicating it to its own thread.

Looking at the sun at all stages in the sky (through the glass) it always appears to be the same size.

The FE explanation for the sun not changing in size is glare and projection on light onto the atmosphere. These pictures disprove such a notion. Is this a flaw in FET?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Laser accuracy

« on: December 14, 2007, 08:25:24 PM »

I propose an experiment to anyone and everyone that has the ideal conditions or environment.

Set up laser pointers over a period of several miles apart that use levels to shoot the lasers perpendicular to the ground. If the curvature of the Earth doesn't exist, the lasers should reach the other pointer without aiming above it. If curvature does exist, the angle will increase the further away the lasers are. Simple enough? I posted it under argument so that the science behind the experiment can be discussed. If there is a flaw in the experiment it needs to be corrected.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Exclusive Evidence

« on: December 12, 2007, 04:43:58 AM »

This UA theory is creative, but lacks total evidence and support.

I can measure the rate of the FE's acceleration with nothing more than a pen, a ruler and a watch.

The evidence you speak of is equally valid as evidence for RE.

I recall a study on the effects of prayer where two groups of people who were ill and were isolated. None of them knew about the study. People were then instructed to pray for people in group A while group B was not. Medical assistance in both groups was administered to the same extent, but somehow the group in which people were prayed for healed better and faster. Several people attributed this to be proof of God, but the fact is that  is also is evidence for ESP, etc.

What evidence is there exclusive to FE?

Tom Bishop, don't bring up Robotham's experiments like in other similar threads. He has been throughly disproved and shown to be unreliable and faulty providing sources.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Username's FE Model

« on: December 05, 2007, 06:41:01 AM »

No, my FE does not imply a UA.

Please xplain. 

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Evolution

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:09:46 PM »

Discuss.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Celestial "Gears"

« on: November 19, 2007, 08:28:43 AM »

A recent thread got moved to angry ranting, while the valid questions were ignored entirely. Although the recent posts were not appropriate for a debate, these questions are still unanswered:

So, how exactly would one explain under FE theory that the star field could rotate in TWO directions at the same time? (not even including near the equator where the paths are perpendicular).

The stars spin in opposite directions over certain areas because that is what is observed. That's simply how the stars move. The turning of the "gears" keep each other generally moving in opposite directions. Not literal gears, but celestial systems rubbing against each other, affecting each other gravometrically.

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. One is over Australia, one is over South America, and another is over the North Pole. Each have unique properties and keep each other in motion via gravitational gears. Formation was caused by a conglomerate of stellar interactions and the influence of the sun which makes a path through the teeth of these gears.

Here is an animation for visual effect:



The movement of these stars is what is attributed to the Focault Pendulum, Corolis Effect, gyroscopes, and other spinning phenomena. Bodies will be captured geometrically and propelled in the direction and apogee of the close stars overhead, which make one rotation around the hub per twenty four hours. The South Celestial Systems over the Southern Hemisphere are spinning in the opposite direction and so bodies will be deflected in the opposite direction.

As for why the stars spin in different directions over different parts of the earth; that's more of a hypothetical question. No true answer will ever be given because astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Any number of stellar models could be created to explain the movements of such intricate multiple systems.

________________________________________

Wait, your saying gravitational pull is moving all the stars perfectly and synchronously? wow... 

The stars move at the same rate, in opposite hemispheres of the Earth. Constellations are an easy verification that the stars always matched up and don't twist over a long distance over the equator. The same constellations are viewed in the appropriate places and times on Earth every night.

This means the stars on the Southern portion or outer edges of FE are both covering more distance in the same time and moving the same speed. (More distance because the larger the circle the greater the circumference. The closer  to the outer edge the bigger the circle)

________________________________________

Wow..

a) Under this "gears" view of star movement how would it be possible for a person on the very edge (south pole) to witness stars near the horizon rotating 360 degrees around him without any particular section appearing closer/larger relative to others? (Can be shown through simple trigonometry to be impossible given star "plains" at a distance of 3100 miles above the earth)

b)How would stars at the north/south poles with higher inclination from the horizon appear to follow concentric circles which diminish in radius as they near 90 degrees? How would these stars remain in view for the entire summer without ever falling below the horizon?

c) why would one halfway between a pole and the equator not be able to see where one "gear" ends and the next begins?

d) If the sets of stars were separate and rotating on opposing axis why do the stars appear motionless in relation to each other from every point on earth?

e)Why would an observer on the equator be able to see stars/consolations from both hemispheres at the same time, yet still not observe any opposing rotations?

f) How could two separate observers, one on the very "edge" (south pole) and another 5000 miles to the north both see the same constellation from nearly identical perspectives when it is only 3100 miles away?

Hint: Make a right angle triangle with 5000km opposite edge and 3100km adjacent edge, using trig calculate the angle between observer A and observer B.
angle Tan = opposite     5000 = 1.613    tan1.613 = 58.2 degrees
                adjacent     3100

In other words the two observers would be viewing the consolation from very different perspectives (squished stars anyone?). If you don't believe me there is simple way to see the effects. find a flat round object (coin would do nicely) and hold it up with its face perpendicular to your line of sight, Now just rotate the coin in any direction keeping the face visible. If the laws of physics apply to you (unlike Bishop) you should see the results (no you don't have magic coin squishing powers).

7

Flat Earth Debate / The Moon

« on: November 10, 2007, 11:22:05 AM »

Since the theory that the sun was a flat spotlight evolved into a spherical spotlight, I wish to confirm the moon also has become 3-D.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Username Please Explain

« on: November 09, 2007, 08:35:52 PM »

Even in round earth there is no "real gravity", just gravitation.

However, there is more gravitational pull from above the moon than from the earth.  This is why we can see that the moon is moving away from the earth at about 4cm per year.

How does the black hole pull anything if there is no true gravity?

1. Your belief in Gravity seems dependent on the debate...
2. How do you know the moon is moving away at 4cm per year if you don't believe in NASA and other research and governmental groups?

9

Flat Earth Debate / RE WINS!

« on: November 07, 2007, 01:23:04 PM »

FE is stupid. The end.

10

Flat Earth Debate / wtf lol? (magnets)

« on: October 31, 2007, 12:59:11 PM »

The existence of the magnetic poles are screwing with my head. First of all, there no south pole on FE.
sooo...
Where do southern lights come from? The FAQ says that the ice wall has the aurora Australis because it is the closest we can get to the magnetic pole underneath the Earth. I thought no one was allowed to go there.. I also don't see how the magnetism is strong enough so far from the poles to interact with solar radiation. The magnetic field is only strong enough in concentrated areas (poles). And where the heck does this magnetic field come from without a spinning molten core?   

FE'ers please elaborate.

11

Flat Earth Debate / eskimoes

« on: October 28, 2007, 08:19:03 PM »

if the world was flat then wheredo all the eskimos live? I read thruogh you FAQ and saw that you replace Anatrcica with ice wall were guards keep it unreachabl. Explain yourselfes.