1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:49:48 AM »

They were taken across as livestock.

what, like pets? interesting theory, but mine is better; dinosaurs evolved into even more special creatures, and split atoms, thus blowing the shit out of some point in South America, but covered it all up with a simulated meteor strike in case they got in trouble with the US and the whole war on terror malarkey. challenge you to prove me wrong, and if you can't, I therefore am proved correct.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:45:43 AM »

do yourself a favour and jut ignore my posts if you don't like them, jut bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts. anyone who suggests the sun is not a star, which is reacting hydrogen, is retarded, not wrong, but deliberately going against logic and proven science

3

Flat Earth General / Re: where dinosaurs real, or from Mars?

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:41:08 AM »

I wish there was a practising vet on the forum who could jump in at this point and show you the evidence of your failure

4

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:39:50 AM »

if the sun is 31 miles across, and the earth is 28,000 miles across, how can the sun, when it is at it's furthest, still the same size? and why can't it be seen with a telescope when it's 'far away'? I know it's because the earth has rotated away from it, but I'd love to know the FE theory without having to read your bible

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Could there be an Earth 2?

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:35:07 AM »

that later line sounds like a tactic you're very fluent and familiar with, fancy that

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:33:20 AM »

the earth is a round globe because that is the shape of least resistance in a vacuum and is dictated by the relative gravity exerted by the matter which is an all encompassing uniform force, hence the elegant order in the universe

FET says that gravity doesn't exist on Earth (but it does in celestial bodies for matter of convenience) so your argument holds no grounds in that respect.

He still hasn't quite registered this yet. He doesn't believe that the velocity addition formula is from special relativity.

orly? I challenge you to find evidence of this, I can guarantee you'll find none, check your facts before asserting inaccuracies

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pangea and FE Theory?

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:29:48 AM »

this is the best forum ever, seriously, I am hooked, it's like watching a paraplegic trying to cartwheel and inventing ever more elaborate theories as to how he could do it, if only he could ignore certain physical facts, then it would be true..

Please watch your tone.  I admit, I giggled at your comparison of a REer trying to argue his theory to a paraplegic trying to do cartwheels, but such a crude and indecent analogy just doesn't belong in the serious discussion boards, however apt it may be.

so why have you just repeated and recycled it yourself, surely you should be setting an example?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "accelerating earth" definitively disproven, please adjust your 'FAQ'

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:26:17 AM »

Read up on the equivalence principle.

you just made that up, or some loon did, how can you offer that as fact? and why don't you ever answer questions instead telling people to read this or read that, or posting a link to another lot of physically impossible science fiction?

Karl, we need to stop doing this. I can't keep pointing you in the right direction. To debate efficiently and be given some respect, you need to know your science, and the only exceptions are those for the FEers. But us REers have an image to uphold!

If you haven't read about the equivalence principle then you haven't studied special relativity and thus probably don't know whether the OP is right or wrong with what he said.

don't be so patronising, where are you guiding me and pointing me in the right direction? I am testing the knowledge of those FE'ers who simply quote something that sounds sciencey instead of using the theory to expalin their point, which never happens on here, it's all "read this" "click this link", I want to know how the equivalence principle disproves the OP's valid and correct assertion

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:17:48 AM »

so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?

Based on your posts so far, I'd say learning a lot more about physics would be a step in the right direction.

Please don't make low-content posts in the serious debate forums

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:14:47 AM »

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Reason for a conspiracy

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:09:29 AM »

Given that the Greeks didn't write scientific papers, I would take your Don Quixote mimicking quest to the collected works of Pythagorus or Pappus's works from c.300AD that makes extensive reference to the work of Eratosthenes during Ptolemy's reign.

I would assume the theories on shadow length across the globe, horizon effects on mountain ranges and ships, and the curvature have already been covered and that you've been unable to refute them, merely asking people to constantly "prove" the point whilst failing to realise that th eburden of proof isn't on us, but on you. The FE theory is simply ludicrous. The speeds involved to explain your non-gravity are impossible, the theory of a disc like planet are against everything we know about physics, astronomy and chemistry, and, to cap it all, you're inability to prove the theory is blamed on a "conspiracy". Tin foil hats at the ready....

Well, no.  I suggest you lurk moar; FET has an explanation for everything you bring up.  Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to the point you were making about the Conspiracy, so it's all rather moot.  Please try to stay on topic.

stop saying lurk moar to people whom you can't challenge in reasoned debate, and instead of asking for proof the world is a globe, why doj't you prove to us it is not? I know you can't, because it's impossible, but I will look forward to the inevitable comedy science

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Could there be an Earth 2?

« on: May 04, 2011, 10:01:51 AM »

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.


you have posted a fancy looking equation that is meant to make you look like you understand it, which you don't, otherwise you'd have typed it up and explained it yourself, and have left it there as if it proves a point you where making, which it doesn't as you haven't successfully linked it to the assertion you were trying to prove wrong. in short, you're trying to blind people with science who are more intelligent than you.

so, just to be clear, can you define your argument and explain how your equation on special relativity proves it, please?

Sorry karl, but if you look closely you'll notice that there is a hyperlink above the equation I quoted, which will lead you to the source it was taken from. It contains a detailed explanation which should be more than sufficient. If you have any further questions of this kind, check out the link below:


www.rif.org

more avoidance with links to external sources. I asked you to use it in context to prove your point, it's a test to see if you know what you're talking about, and in refusal to conclusively prove me wrong, you are showing your ignorance in all its light. in fact, I put it to you that you didn't even have a point to make and where just trying to look all cool and flat earthy

13

Flat Earth General / Re: where dinosaurs real, or from Mars?

« on: May 04, 2011, 09:58:24 AM »

they were animals, no different to todays creatures except in size, and also the small matter of tiny brain cavities that severely restricted their mental capacity

I agree! Modern dinosaurs have been shown to be capable of tool creation and other problem-solving abilities. Why would prehistoric dinosaurs be any different?

it's in bold so you can ignore it again

and epic lol at 'modern dinosaurs', your lunacy knows no bounds

14

Flat Earth General / Re: where dinosaurs real, or from Mars?

« on: May 04, 2011, 09:51:55 AM »

despite [dinosaurs] having no . . . ability to think beyond food > chew > crap

Justify this statement.

they were animals, no different to todays creatures except in size, and also the small matter of tiny brain cavities that severely restricted their mental capacity

no doubt you have 'proof' they where a sea faring, self aware society with a penchant for agriculture and keeping other dinosaurs as pets, or, you'll tell em to read your bible again, Earth not a Globe or some other mindless drivel by lunatics and stuck in the past Luddites

15

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:57:15 PM »

I was referring to a passenger jet, from which I have seen the curve of the earth, as have millions of others, it is not I, but you who are in the minority, so stop trying to pick on a pedantic point to deflect from your inability to answer simple questions that challenge your theory.

let's give it a fourth try, will we? "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth"

16

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:54:39 PM »

evidence is not found in works of fiction, simple as that, and a strictly religious upbringing gives me as much insight into the conternt and gist of Bible and Quoran without reading them as I care for, similarly with the Earth Not a Globe book, I know what to expect, and it is nonsense, just like EastEnders or Coronation Street, I don't watch them, but know enough about them to make a valid assessment of them.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:48:57 PM »

60,000 is the Goldilocks position to see a perfectly clear curve, but it is easily detectable from 20k upwards, do your research more thoroughly before refuting facts.

and whilst we're on the topic, you claim the earth is flat, yet quote me heights at which the curve can be seen...interesting

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:43:39 PM »

verbal warnings on a text board? really? I must have missed that, I'll take the laptop off mute

19

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:42:27 PM »

because it is based on fallacy, and is one persons singular opinion, if there was the evidence you claim in it, it wouldn't be hidden away in some loons book and being ignored by the rest of the world

I know what's in the Bible & the Quoran without having read them, they have equally deluded followers of an outdated and widely disproved book who rant about it in such a way as to describe the contents with no need to read

20

Flat Earth General / Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:38:20 PM »

that must have hurt for you to try and pull rank to make a point, and tell me where these warnings are, my inbox is empty, just like your argument and theory

21

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:36:11 PM »

I have led you to the well of knowledge.  If you don't have the will or capacity to dip in and get to the answers then why would you expect me to take the time and effort to explain it to you?  Your lack of motivation does seem to be showing a bit.   

sorry, but you've led me nowhere, stop pontificating like a wise old wizard who's lead his apprentice to the font of magic powers, you're no different in your lack of direct engagement, preferring instead to avoid answers by implying you've delivered some sacred truth, which you haven't btw

22

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:33:31 PM »

yes I have, it's not difficult to detect at that altitude, it can even be observed from a high enough mountain, the Pyrenees will do as an example. even bridges spanning rivers, if big enough require specific distance adjustments at their top spans to account for this curve. it's no secret, unlike your theory

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:30:05 PM »

the earth is a round globe because that is the shape of least resistance in a vacuum and is dictated by the relative gravity exerted by the matter which is an all encompassing uniform force, hence the elegant order in the universe

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Industrial flat glass, needs a flat earth

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:26:59 PM »

my time here would be a lot more enjoyable if some of you would answer questions on the topic and stop avoiding them, it is frustration at the total lack of answers, diversionary tactics and being told to read the same one book that you all get your views from. you're like sheep blindly following the crackpot theories instigated by a heroin addict over 200 years ago.

explain why the sun stays the same size in the sky from one side to the other despite going from 31 miles above us to over 14,000, according to your 'facts'

explain why we can't see to the far side of the disc, and are limited to 6 miles

explain why the other globe planets formed as such yet earth is a huge metal disc flying through space

explain how land and ships appear to rise out of the horizon

in fact explain all of the above if the surface isn't curved

and that's just for starters, no answers are to be found in the Q&A, so, go for it, one by one, explain them

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Adam Savage: "Mythbusters is Entertainment, Not Science"

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:18:30 PM »

fail

26

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:16:33 PM »

good answer, unfortunately though, death won't bring you answers because you'll be dead and know nothing, but I hope that you will one day see it for yourself, maybe look out the window of an aircraft that's a mile or so up in the air, then the world will be below you in all its globey goodness

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Could there be an Earth 2?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:13:10 PM »

you assume I don't recognize it (you FE'ers seem to assume and make up an awful lot btw) I never even implied such a thing, I am simply asking for someone who quoted it to put it into context, to actually use it instead of flashing it to look clever, now stop trying to look smart, I've lurked here for longer than you know..

28

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you're wrong?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:09:45 PM »

you have dodged the question again (with another multiquote failathon) and every time you do so, you look weaker and ever more incapable of answering a simple question.

just because it says 'earth is speshal' in the Q&A section of a forum does not make it true, how can you keep misconstruing facts with theory? it doesn't expalin anywhere why or how earth is special, it just states it, nothing more. why don't you answer these questions yourself?

you're trying to brush aside the obvious truth of the horizon and ships and land masses appearing seemingly out from it, again, because you cannot offer any other explanation, you know it to be true, and so can't reply, instead you try an avoidance tactic of moving to dinosaurs, which isn't working btw.

so, again, I will ask you a simple question, please try to answer it, thsi is your last chance to save face and prove me wrong, if you can; "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth"

29

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:01:45 PM »

it is not 'evidence', don't be such a moron, what you propose, and got from the book, is impossible. provide evidence of your assertions.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Could there be an Earth 2?

« on: May 03, 2011, 04:00:24 PM »

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.


you have posted a fancy looking equation that is meant to make you look like you understand it, which you don't, otherwise you'd have typed it up and explained it yourself, and have left it there as if it proves a point you where making, which it doesn't as you haven't successfully linked it to the assertion you were trying to prove wrong. in short, you're trying to blind people with science who are more intelligent than you.

so, just to be clear, can you define your argument and explain how your equation on special relativity proves it, please?