1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Happy New Year, Flat Earthers!

« on: January 01, 2016, 12:49:43 PM »

There is no such thing as the Gregorian calendar reform.

The complete proofs, using Gauss' easter formula:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488947#msg1488947

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638725#msg1638725

Sorry, but I don't know what "Gregorian calendar reform" is.I was just refering to the calendar that the entire western world uses.
I don't care to scroll through an entire page of ramblings about Beethoven's symphonies, or ancient reforms of the catholic church. If you would like to make an argument that proves how the flat earth measures a year, please post it.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Happy New Year, Flat Earthers!

« on: January 01, 2016, 12:29:38 PM »

As all rational people using the Gregorian calendar know, it has just become a new year, 2016. The reason for this is because the Earth has once a again completed a revolution around the Sun. It was also a leap year, a special occurrence resulting from a year actually being 365.25 days long to be more precise. I ask flat Earthers what they define the beginning and end of a year to be, what causes it, how we measure it, and how we know it is occurring.

While you're at it, go ahead and talk about seasons, solstices, and everything else spherical earthers already have been indoctrinated with.

I just altered your post to make it much more realistic. Happy new year.

No, you altered my quote to fit your narrative. You exposed your own indoctrination more than you exposed mine or anyone else's. You prove nothing and you refute nothing.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Happy New Year, Flat Earthers!

« on: January 01, 2016, 08:43:23 AM »

As all rational people using the Gregorian calendar know, it has just become a new year, 2016. The reason for this is because the Earth has once a again completed a revolution around the Sun. It was also a leap year, a special occurrence resulting from a year actually being 365.25 days long to be more precise. I ask flat Earthers what they define the beginning and end of a year to be, what causes it, how we measure it, and how we know it is occurring.

While you're at it, go ahead and talk about seasons, solstices, and everything else spherical earthers already have figured out.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: December 24, 2015, 09:16:50 PM »

The top ten proofs for a flat earth according to a FE believer:

• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.
• We know the earth is round but we pretend we don't to troll everyone else.

That's it. That's the whole website. Nothing can be said that hasn't  already been predicted. Go ahead and shut her down.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the greatest flat earth fallacy ?

« on: December 24, 2015, 01:39:31 PM »

Anyone else think that flight would be entirely impossible if the Flat Earth model were true?
Bear with me, and tell me if this makes sense or not.
On a spherical Earth, Gravity is a force that attracts, so for an airplane or bird to fly, it simply produces an equal or greater downward force to generate lift.
On a flat Earth, the Universe is accelerating towards everything. Therefore, If an airplane was flying, the Earth would rise so quickly it would crash into it because it is accelerating. In fact, anything that jumped or left the Earth's surface for even a moment would be smacked with the momentous force of the entire planet (do flat Earthers call it a planet?).

If this is not what would happen please tell me, it's just something I have thought about, I may be confusing a constant acceleration with an increasing acceleration. I understand things like that "the air should also be moving with the Earth, but think about it like if you are in an elevator going up? Is this not what would happen? Just food for thought.

The Universe isn't fundamentally separate from its contents.  If the whole universe is accelerating, then that includes its contents.  Accordingly, an accelerating universe looks identical to a universe without acceleration.  Flight is still possible, etc.  There would never be a theoretical means of detecting the effects of this acceleration anywhere or upon anything.  So your scenario is incorrect.

OK, I understand, that makes sense. So what causes gravity if there is no way to detect this acceleration? You said it should fundamentally be the same as a universe without acceleration.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dual Earth Religion

« on: December 24, 2015, 12:16:40 PM »

I wonder if this has something to do with jrowe leaving...

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the greatest flat earth fallacy ?

« on: December 24, 2015, 12:14:53 PM »

Anyone else think that flight would be entirely impossible if the Flat Earth model were true?
Bear with me, and tell me if this makes sense or not.
On a spherical Earth, Gravity is a force that attracts, so for an airplane or bird to fly, it simply produces an equal or greater downward force to generate lift.
On a flat Earth, the Universe is accelerating towards everything. Therefore, If an airplane was flying, the Earth would rise so quickly it would crash into it because it is accelerating. In fact, anything that jumped or left the Earth's surface for even a moment would be smacked with the momentous force of the entire planet (do flat Earthers call it a planet?).

If this is not what would happen please tell me, it's just something I have thought about, I may be confusing a constant acceleration with an increasing acceleration. I understand things like that "the air should also be moving with the Earth, but think about it like if you are in an elevator going up? Is this not what would happen? Just food for thought.

Huh, I've never thought of that.

They will probably say things in the "dome" aren't affected.

First of all, what the hell is the dome? Like I've heard of it, but is it like a border made of something you can't break, or is it just an atmosphere? And if the earth is flat why would the atmosphere be curved?
And second of all, if things in this dome are not affected by the acceleration how the hell do we experience gravity?
Besides, no property of "being in a dome" would logically stop either of those things.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 24, 2015, 12:02:38 PM »

If he's an engineer I certainly hope he doesn't build anything I use.

Do you use rockets or missiles?  'Cause that's what I build.

I don't use them, but I certainly don't want a missile that's supposed to kill terrorists to blow up a village of totally innocent people just because the fucktard that designed it and made the calculations designed it to work on a FUCKING FLAT PLANE.

Is that why the US can hit everything but ISIS?

We can't hit ISIS but we sure as hell can hit a volunteer hospital in a third world country. Thanks, TheEngineer!

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 24, 2015, 07:21:20 AM »

If he's an engineer I certainly hope he doesn't build anything I use.

Do you use rockets or missiles?  'Cause that's what I build.

I don't use them, but I certainly don't want a missile that's supposed to kill terrorists to blow up a village of totally innocent people just because the fucktard that designed it and made the calculations designed it to work on a FUCKING FLAT PLANE.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another problem with ather

« on: December 24, 2015, 07:16:54 AM »

Hi first post here.

 I am a realist, therefor know earth is a sphere, spinning on its axis, orbiting another object.
Science can predict and prove how 2 objects of any mass will affect each other, as observed by us on earth and with other planets we can clearly see with telescopes. 

Calculating the Force of Gravity Between Two Objects

Define the equation for the force of gravity that attracts an object, Fgrav = (Gm1m2)/d2 .

In order to properly calculate the gravitational force on an object, this equation takes into account the masses of both objects and how far apart the objects are from each other.
The variables are defined below.
Fgrav is the force due to gravity
G is the universal gravitation constant 6.673 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2[4]
m1 is the mass of the first object
m2 is the mass of the second object
d is the distance between the centers of two objects
Sometimes you will see the letter r instead of the letter d. Both symbols represent the distance between the two objects.

Use the proper metric units. For this particular equation, you must use metric units. The masses of objects need to be in kilograms (kg) and the distance needs to be in meters (m). You must convert to these units before continuing with the calculation.

Determine the mass of the object in question. For smaller objects, you can weigh them on a scale or balance to determine their weight in kilograms (kg). For larger objects, you will have to look-up the approximate mass in a table or online. In physics problems, the mass of the object will generally be provided to you.

Measure the distance between the two objects. If you are trying to calculate the force of gravity between an object and the earth, you need to determine how far away the object is from the center of the earth.
The distance from the surface of the earth to the center is approximately 6.38 x 106 m.
You can find tables and other resources online that will provide you with approximate distances of the center of the earth to objects at various elevations on the surface.

Solve the equation. Once you have defined the variables of your equation, you can plug them in and solve. Be sure that all of your units are in metric and on the right scale. Mass should be in kilograms and distance in meters. Solve the equation using the proper order of operations.

For example: Determine the force of gravity on a 68 kg person on the surface of the earth. The mass of the earth is 5.98 x 1024 kg.
Make sure all your variables have the proper units. m1 = 5.98 x 1024 kg, m2 = 68 kg, G = 6.673 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2, and d = 6.38 x 106 m
Write your equation: Fgrav = (Gm1m2)/d2 = [(6.67 x 10-11) x 68 x (5.98 x 1024)]/(6.38 x 106)2
Multiply the masses of the two objects together. 68 x (5.98 x 1024) = 4.06 x 1026
Multiply the product of m1 and m2 by the gravitational constant G. (4.06 x 1026) x (6.67 x 10-11) = 2.708 x 1016
Square the distance between the two objects. (6.38 x 106)2 = 4.07 x 1013
Divide the product of G x m1 x m2 by the distance squared to find the force of gravity in Newtons (N). 2.708 x 1016/4.07 x 1013 = 665 N
The force of gravity is 665 N.

Pretty simple maths can explain so much, show me the same kind of math that predicts how Aether affects things I can observe. I will need to be able to apply the calculation/formule to a set of measurements and observe predictable results.

You can do math. You're gonna have fun here. Just so you know I brought up the gravitational constant once and someone just said it doesn't exist, without actually rebutting it. Common occurrence here. jroa and TheEngineer are trolls that just derail threads, just a heads up.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the greatest flat earth fallacy ?

« on: December 24, 2015, 07:07:44 AM »

Anyone else think that flight would be entirely impossible if the Flat Earth model were true?
Bear with me, and tell me if this makes sense or not.
On a spherical Earth, Gravity is a force that attracts, so for an airplane or bird to fly, it simply produces an equal or greater downward force to generate lift.
On a flat Earth, the Universe is accelerating towards everything. Therefore, If an airplane was flying, the Earth would rise so quickly it would crash into it because it is accelerating. In fact, anything that jumped or left the Earth's surface for even a moment would be smacked with the momentous force of the entire planet (do flat Earthers call it a planet?).

If this is not what would happen please tell me, it's just something I have thought about, I may be confusing a constant acceleration with an increasing acceleration. I understand things like that "the air should also be moving with the Earth, but think about it like if you are in an elevator going up? Is this not what would happen? Just food for thought.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Brief History-question of and about Rocks?

« on: December 24, 2015, 06:52:43 AM »

I don't understand how the flat Earth explains the existence of rocks at all.
Plate tectonics? Layering of the Earth? Volcanic activity? How do they explain any of these things?
Good question I have never asked...
WHY IS THE EARTH FLAT.
I CAN EXPLAIN WHAT MADE THE EARTH SPHERE. WHAT MADE THE EARTH THE ONLY GIANT DISK IN THE UNIVERSE?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What causes things to orbit around other planets?

« on: December 23, 2015, 02:54:24 PM »

And on the topic. How would DEF Aeather explain what is happening on OTHER planets. It says the things move the way they do because of Aether from his model but since Jupiter is not two discs on top of each other, why would the same rules apply?

The other problem is the shadows Jupiter's moons cast on its surface. If EVERYTHING is self-illuminating white-hot metal, how do these dark shadows of the moons appear the the face of Jupiter?


Same BTW on Saturn:

They're going to say those pictures are fake no doubt.

Of course! How did I never think of that on a flat Earth model, the sun's light could never reach distant planets that are LARGER THAN IT.
They may say the image is fake, but anyone can take a telescope and see it themself.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 23, 2015, 02:49:03 PM »

I'm fairly certain you are not an engineer.

If he's an engineer I certainly hope he doesn't build anything I use.
Does your boss know? Does your boss know you think the Earth is flat? How are you hireable?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth depends on proof by lack of evidence

« on: December 23, 2015, 12:10:36 PM »

It just dawned on me, can't belie I didn't realize this earlier, but the main flat earth argument depends on proof by lack of evidence. They'll say that we don't see a curve (lack of evidence) therfore the earth is flat (proof).

Excellent. The Spherical Earth relies on the idea that you could never see the curve from normal height. The lack of proof for a normal observer is normal. The fact of the matter is that if the Earth is a sphere by our measurements, you don't see the curvature. Our model makes that prediction. The prediction is fulfilled perfectly. Why is lack of a curvature evidence of a flat Earth when for a normal observer it fits evidence of a spherical Earth?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are there any Sphere Earth believers who used to be FE believers?

« on: December 23, 2015, 12:06:07 PM »

Maybe you need to go back to prekindergarten, to learn that the earth is a globe?

You should know that TheEngineer thinks the world is round.  He just enjoys being an arsehole, so he joined the Flat Earth Society, where he can indulge his depravity without censure.

Essentially, he likes winding people up on the internet, which is precisely what he's doing with you.

I enjoy having logical debates with people, which is why I can't work with people like jroa or TheEngineer (both of which are both just trolls that know the Earth is a sphere, from what I have heard.) I usually debate politics, but I decided to give that a break and see how people actually think the world can be flat and have an internet connection. I'm on winter break from school right now, so come mid January I will probably never really be here or only pop in once in awhile to see if people are still fools. Overall, I think people overestimate how much they can upset me on this site. I mean... the Earth is a sphere. Even if you call me names and give me models that don't make sense, I go to sleep at night smiling knowing that I am right and you are wrong. And if you are just trolling me to see how mad I get... lol get a life.
Most people I tell I do this don't believe this place exists until I show them.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 23, 2015, 09:53:45 AM »

Since sustained space flight is not possible with the accelerating FE, satellites would not be able to remain in 'orbit', thus satellites could not exit, but for short periods of time.

Yet many of us receive TV from satellites.

I agree with you. I was simply proving to the engineer that he did in fact say that under the Flat Earth a satellite is impossible.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: JRoweSkeptic and DEF problem

« on: December 23, 2015, 09:22:51 AM »

Since the traditional, single disk FE model is destroyed (DEF blows it off with just a hand-wave) - you can't see the S. Celestial Pole from above the disk, hence DEF with 2 poles to the rescue - DEF is THE FE model. Like JRoweSkeptic's sig says - "Dual Earth Theory (sic), the best FE model"

The funniest thing is that ONLY JRoweSkeptic, out of ALL the people on Earth understands it! ONE person! THAT is the Flat Earth Society. If he dies, FE dies too...

Problem?

Yeah, that's hilarious. One person is not the only one in the entire world to know its shape in 2015. But remember if Einstein had died early his theories would have died with him. However, someone else certainly would have continued it or discovered it independently. The question is, after jrowe is gone, will anyone continue it...

I understand the intention of this post but I can't help but feel it's a bit... Personal.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 23, 2015, 09:18:06 AM »

Of course it does exist.

As CGI, green screen, suspension wires, propaganda and a comfy swimming pool

I disagree with you but how did you do that? Was it like this?

I love puppies

I think it was sarcastic

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets talk facts and science not conspiracy

« on: December 23, 2015, 08:31:12 AM »

These may help in the discussion.

Help? Dammit, you've ended it!

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are there any Sphere Earth believers who used to be FE believers?

« on: December 23, 2015, 08:28:30 AM »

I said that people with some sort of education begin to be taught this from when they are born, not that it's something you know when you are born.

No, you said it is something people know from birth, not are taught from birth:

Everyone who is raised in a place that has contact with the developed world knows the Earth is round from birth.

What a fucking joke.

Yes you are.

Well guess fucking what? I misphrased myself? Happy? I didn't phrase my words to exactly express my intention I expected someone to have the intelligence to know what I mean besed on the words around it and that no one in their right mind would imply that that sort of knowledge could be inherent. You don't prove the world is flat, you don't debunk any evidence that the Earth is round, and you don't convince anyone that I was trying to imply anything about inherent knowledge. You are only being a dick. It was clear in my original message what I meant, and my further clarifications have since erased all doubt. You only make yourself look foolish by splitting hairs over syntax and not winning an argument at all.

And nice comeback. Similar ones can be heard in a pre-kindergarten class. Where children begin to learn the earth is a sphere by being exposed to globes. Which is what I clearly meant. Maybe you need to go back to prekindergarten, to learn that the earth is a globe?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 23, 2015, 08:09:30 AM »

Since sustained space flight is not possible with the accelerating FE, satellites would not be able to remain in 'orbit', thus satellites could not exit, but for short periods of time.

23

Flat Earth Debate / What causes things to orbit around other planets?

« on: December 23, 2015, 05:57:02 AM »

For a moment, we'll completely ignore flat Earth models of the Sun and Moon and how they... Do whatever you would call it and focus on other things.
Another planet, such as Jupiter, with its moons, is easily observable with a telescope (it is even possible to see it and a few moons with the naked eye). Anyone can record the way they move around Jupiter in what can only be described as an orbit. Interestingly enough, many other things in the universe do the same thing. The scientific name for this is a satellite
No denying they are real, and there, and that is how they move.
If gravity is not real, what causes anything in the universe to orbit
Don't limit yourself to explaining this. Feel free to explain how stars can perform nuclear fusion, or anything can literally even exist without gravity.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 23, 2015, 05:35:11 AM »

"FE'ers believe that the earth is ACCELERATING at a constant 9.8 m/s^2.  This is not a SPEED, it is an ACCELERATION!

Acceleration is an acceleration?  Say it ain't so!

"At this rate of acceleration, we would have reached the speed of light in just 354.3 DAYS. 

Sure, unless you believe in Special Relativity.  In which case it would require an infinite amount of time to reach the speed of light.

   Now FE'ers whould have us believe that since we are in the same reference frame as the earth, this doesn't violate relativity.  Oh but it does!

Nope.

  In order to say that the Earth is accelerating, a reference frame at rest must have been chosen.

No, there only needs to be an inertial frame of reference.  Not a frame at rest.  In fact, Special Relativity has no preferred frame of reference and all frames are equivalent.

This is how someone can say that the Earth is accelerating- we are moving with reference to something.

Drop something.  In reference to that.

Therefore, we would be moving at greater than the speed of light with reference to the frame at rest.

Nope.  We would approach the speed of light asymptotically, requiring an infinite amount of time to reach it.

A clear violation of Relativity

Again: nope.

Alright. All you said is "under my model a satellite is impossible". I have evidence that satellites are real. Your model has been disproven. Unless you want to give some sort of substantial evidence against satellites?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are there any Sphere Earth believers who used to be FE believers?

« on: December 23, 2015, 05:26:05 AM »

Everyone who is raised in a place that has contact with the developed world knows the Earth is round from birth.

Knowledge of the shape of the Earth is innate?  That's a new one.  You RE'ers never cease to amaze me.

What a fucking joke. I said that people with some sort of education begin to be taught this from when they are born, not that it's something you know when you are born. You KNOW that is what I mean. You attempt to twist my words to gain derailment again.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much aether is in my hand?

« on: December 22, 2015, 08:25:36 PM »

I read three pages and no one answered the question.

I was told that the question doesn't make sense. Essentially, he said aether = space(time).
I can understand what that means... except when it comes to things like "flowing", or "having density" (which inherently implies it occupies volume in space, so it can't just be the medium it occupies itself.)
I guess I can say I know more about it than before, but it still seems to me like just an asspull that is used to make everything make sense. I mean, if I can't measure, see, detect, or by any means become aware of the existence of aether... why should I believe it is real? I have asked many times for a way I could do any of those things or just see aether in some sort of action. I have yet to see an answer.

So in my best answer to my own question about how much aether is in my hand, at the moment, I conclude none... because aether does not exist.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

« on: December 22, 2015, 08:18:03 PM »

I realize this is asking you to prove a negative but since you FEs make the claim that they don't exist then its up to you to provide physical evidence. And Jroweskepic this isn't for you since you believe that they do exist or at least the ISS.

This is going to be hilarious. Watch them try to prove something that exists doesn't. The tactics are simple and limited:
Deny evidence presented as part of a conspiracy
Refuse to perform experiments that can be done at home
Shift burden of proof onto the Spherical Earth when we have already proven it.

If satellites are not real, why does satellite TV lose signal when it's stormy, yet you can get signals in mountainous areas just fine? Are you going to say they use cables but intentionally screw with the signal so that we think it comes from space?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Are there any Sphere Earth believers who used to be FE believers?

« on: December 22, 2015, 08:12:23 PM »

Everyone who is raised in a place that has contact with the developed world knows the Earth is round from birth. People that don't have clean water, food, electricity still tend to know it if there is any educational infrastructure at all to diffuse information.
I don't think if you can be convinced the Earth is flat, it's very easy to convince you it's a sphere again. You have taught yourself a new way to think that defies logic.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets talk facts and science not conspiracy

« on: December 22, 2015, 06:10:09 PM »

This is a claim without any evidence or science or math to substantiate it. Give me the math!

I don't have anywhere near the resources to begin to calculate that. It's well documented though: you can see further on some days than others. Air is not perfectly transparent.

I mean wouldn't intensity of the Sun result in the Sun always being visible as well? This is a point I have always made.

That would require the Sun's light to be pointed in the right direction. Under classical FET, for example, it's akin to a spotlight.

I don't think you have any idea of the intensity of the light emitted from that test. Nor do you understand light and its behavior in atmosphere. I light several orders of magnitude smaller than that created by the blast could easily penetrate thousands of kilometres of atmosphere ... even clouds. I specifically chose that example because of the intensity vs Hiroshima or other options. Also because it was essentially over open water with nothing to block the light.

Air blocks light. Not perfectly, but it does: over sufficient distance, I fail to see what else you would expect. (And under the DE model, light would be drawn down to the Earth's surface: this is also what causes the sinking ship illusion on the horizon. That would limit how far any light could go).

We totally understand that air is not perfectly transparent. We are merely arguing that the explosion of this magnitude would have been visible from pretty much anywhere. We would like to see you calculations regarding that air would be sufficiently thick if your argument is going to rely on that. We know how bright the explosion was, we know the opaqueness of air. Use your model's distance calculations and it should be fairly simple.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lets talk facts and science not conspiracy

« on: December 22, 2015, 05:33:27 PM »

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights.

Oh, like the render distance when I play Minecraft? I use minecraft to try to visualize many flat Earth models.