31

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:52:00 PM »

diagrams? are you for real? drawings from a lunatic are more conclusive evidential material than actual photographs and testable, provable physics? one man and his pictures are right and the weight of the combined scientific community are wrong? deluded doesn't even begin to describe your reasoning. and no, I have no tread the book, I don't need to, you lot spout enough of its sentiment to give me a fairly good idea of its content, and I have much better things to read than that discredited and false drivel.

32

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:47:09 PM »

oh dear, a multi quote failathon..

1. you make no sense whatsoever, what you say is gibberish and incoherent

2. you still haven't answered the question, even in this post, so, again, you are dodging answering because you can't, but I will ask you again anyway; "how to you explain the FE position that the other planets are globes? what special power acted so differently upon them than our earth", no dodging now, you seem to misconstrue facts with theory an awful lot, so concentrate on this fact; YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION, just so you're clear on the actual fact of the situation.

3. Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, and yes, having grown up on the coast of Ireland and travelled to most of the coastal European countries, by ship (not dinosaur design btw), I, and sailors of hundreds of years ago have noticed how the distant ships, land, any mass tbh, seemingly rises form the water as you draw near. If you have never witnessed this, then I say you're either blind, or simply not intelligent enough to comprehend what you are indeed seeing. this is a provable, and well documented phenomenon.

4. ENaG means feck all squared to me, elaborate and refrain from text speak please, you have a full QWERTY keyboard in front of you

33

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:38:13 PM »

Earth Not a Globe is a crock full of shit, inspired by a crack pot heroin addict in the 1800's, and show me where the diagram, or mathematical perspective, puts the vanishing point an infinite distance away.

do you just sit and make this stuff up  because that's easier to front up to and perpetuate than admitting you're utterly, and unequivocally wrong.

you never answer questions without "Please read *insert random nonsense here*", and every time it some crap spouted and unproven by an unknown looser with no other means with which to make themselves known, other than crazy conspiracy theories like flying metal discs in space, and you just gobble it all up, hook, line & sinker

so, tell me this, and using real world, testable physics; why doesn't the sun decrease in size as it moves away from us? after all, a 31 mile wide disc is going to look pretty fecking small at 14,000 miles, yet, somehow, miraculously, it retains the exact same size from one side of the sky to the other.

also, explain why our perspective view of it doesn't distort into an elliptical shape as the disc recedes in the distance.

also, please explain what force moves the sun in its circular motion above the disc world, what keeps it there?

34

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Another post your desktop thread

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:15:55 PM »

I also use this when I feel like it.  I have several of those (which each has a different hue/color) that I have set as a 'slideshow'.

what's that big burning globe thing in your pic?

35

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Are we living in a computer simulation?

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:13:20 PM »

no, we're all living on a giant flying disc with no gravity or known physics

36

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 03:10:51 PM »

now that's just crazy talk, next thing you'll be telling us that satellites are actually being simulated from huge radio masts and that a great ice wall encircles the earth to keep us all in it's icy prison

37

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 02:29:50 PM »

Adding to this, we can certainly make kilometer-long assemblies perfectly flat. You know, the assembly floor doesn't have to follow the Earth's curvature. That, and the Earth's curvature isn't even perfect, some spots ARE flat, some others are mountains, etc. The Earth is just a ball with a very uneven surface. Hell, the Earth doesn't even have the same radius at the poles and at the equator, nor is the radius constant there. It's easy to find flaws in the "RET" if you take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

It would not matter if the floor of the building was perfectly flat. If the Earth was spherical, and gravity existed, the liquid glass would slightly pool the follow the curvature of the Earth, resulting in the glass not being perfectly flat. If this were not true. The oceans would not follow the curvature of the Earth either. They would be perfectly flat.

Do you think that the water would just lay flat on that flat structure, or do you think it would pool, as illustrated? It can't just lay flat on the structure. Gravity would be pulling it towards the center of the Earth, meaning that it is going to pull it all as close as it can.

you can't be serious with this shit, can you? your basic, and crippling flaw is that there is no 'up' or 'down' in space

the water 'sticks' to the surface due to the uniform nature of gravity exerting the same force all over the planet at the same time, and the atmospheric pressure being high enough that the gasses pool as water on the surface

once again I am jaw dropped by your delusional rantings

38

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 02:24:24 PM »

you're failing harder than a dyslexic in a spelling contest, the process is as such; the glass flows onto the tin surface forming a floating ribbon with perfectly smooth surfaces on both sides and an even thickness. it's flatness is not specifically engineered in, it is a by product of being far too short to notice any curve. now why don't you lurk moar and keep your ridiculous theories locked up where they can't infect any more easily influenced and empty vessels

39

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 02:20:08 PM »

well, if the two distance parameters are correct, they are provided from the chest of secrets the FE'ers have after all, then that leave just the angle to be incorrect, so, I guess the answer is yes, the Greeks got it wrong, and the pinpoint accuracy of modern weapons & space craft placement are incorrect and all part of the conspiracy. seems perfectly reasonable to me.

40

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:40:34 PM »

This argument appears flawless.

Looks to me like another VICTORY FOR FE!!!!

I applaud you Thork, keep up the great work! 

let me rebuke your fanboi post with a deep flaw; float glass isn't proposed to be perfectly 'flat', the technique is used to produce a perfectly smooth surface

you guys have fail written all over you

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:35:16 PM »

I love this body of 'evidence', ancient hand drawn maps are obviously more conclusive than actual photos of the planet, and what's with the suns rays bending to cover the earth? why must you break existing physical laws just to shoe horn your flawed and incorrect argument into reality, doesn't this tell you something?

42

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:31:03 PM »

Samuel Birley Rowbotham was a drug addled retard with no more a grasp of mathematics as you have of physics, the trigonometry exemplified above is solid, factual and provable, in any context you wish to put it, it uses parameters the FE theorists provided in the Q&A section, it cannot be argues with unless you remove a significant section of fact and logic from the equation.

inb4 angles are lies shitstorm

43

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:27:39 PM »

how the feck can you possibly quote normal mainstream physics in support of your deeply flawed and ridiculous theory that even an educated chimp could pick unanswerable fact holes in? do you even understand how quantum mechanics work? relativity is not your friend.

44

Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Hundred Proofs Earth is a globe

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:17:14 PM »

First of all, many of these statements would not actually be considered "proofs" given the word's definition. And secondly, it's pretty sad that you are relying on some guy's text from the 19th century for such a fundamental fact about our planet.

isn't the cornerstone upon which your entire belief system is hinged based on 'work' done by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which was performed in the late 1800?s

I think that's the saddest thing of all, you FE'ers are so clearly lost without a clue as to how the world works so you cling to this most infantile of theories, proposed by a heroin addict over two hundred years ago

45

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:13:13 PM »

explain this one then FE fail theorists

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 01:04:22 PM »

there is not one mainstream, nor respected physicist who feels the same, not one, nada, zero, none, and I challenge you to present one that you haven't pulled out of a Flash Gordon novel. I actually lol'd at the quite simply it isn't real part

Um. No. 

If you'd care to cite where I've ever declared that the sea is bottomless, I would be obliged but if this was just empty rhetoric, please don't bother yourself.

erm, yes it was, it was initiated as a graphic novel in 1936, then a whole heap of novels were released, I know, I have them, have a look here;



http://tinyurl.com/637c62m

secondly, where did I state mainstream science was settled? and what does that mean, or imply?

so if your seemingly loose grasp of facts on such a basic principle as this are so easily proven to be fallacy, how can you propose any sort of theory that is diametrically opposed to proven scientific facts and expect to be taken seriously?

um, yes, or is your blind ignorance continuing into the real world printed right in front of you?

and yes, the rhetoric was to match the pedantic fail in your empty rebuttal, I clearly didn't state that you had claimed this 'fact' as your own, but you knew that before you typed it, didn't you?

Flash Gordon is a novel btw

47

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 12:52:42 PM »

but what holds the Sun in place and moves it across the sky? why can't I get any answers on this forum? 

48

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 12:47:11 PM »

Rowbotham is retarded and has proven nothing, hence him being the 0.001% of his profession who believe he is right and not the other 99.9% who are right, hence his principle being widely disregarded and not taught in schools.

49

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 12:39:33 PM »

oh would you indeed, but what's that got to do with you denying the existence of gravity?

and as for your pedantic point, if you carefully re-read, you'll see that I in fact presented the first Flash Gordon novel as a graphic one, so your moot point is moot

anyways, another nice example of a FE'er failing to answer a direct question and instead picking a pedantic point to try and somehow discredit the normal folks assertions. some would say it's blinded ignorance, I say it's as retarded as claiming the sea has no bottom (awaits shitstorm about bottomless seas that you've already latched onto as fact)

50

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: May 03, 2011, 12:08:47 PM »

Since it's such a hot topic around here, I decided to just make a thread with this information regarding gravity and gravitation.

NOTE: The outlined specifics are not part of the FE theory. This is accepted science, with both FET and RET.

Facts:

• Gravity as a force does not exist
• Gravity is not the same thing as gravitation
• Gravitation is not limited to objects with mass

From TheEngineer:
 
"Gravity specifically refers to the force that Newton theorized happens between bodies with mass and is transmitted instantaneously.  This, however, is incorrect, for a few reasons.  One, gravity is not a force.  It only looks to us as one because we assume we are not accelerating, but are at rest.  However, we are undergoing a constant physical acceleration when we are in contact with the Earth, directly or otherwise.  Two, it only acts on objects with mass.  This leaves out a whole bunch of phenomenon.  Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

Gravitation, is the apparent attraction between objects.  This includes those objects that have no mass.  It also places the limit on the speed that this attraction can have, which is the speed of light.  Now, whether this attraction is due to our tendency to follow geodesics or our acceleration through space is a matter of which model you subscribe to."

And as TheEngineer has stated before on this forum, "Gravity is a pseudo force that only arises by taking a non inertial frame of reference to be inertial.  Gravitation is a consequence of the deformation of space, no force between objects necessary."

Since our FoR is non-inertial, there is no need for gravity. Gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity. What we feel on Earth and attribute to gravity is actually gravitation and the mechanical resistance of the Earth.

Gravity and gravitation can be interchanged in everyday use. However, when dealing with science and scientific discussion (such as on this forum), they are distinct terms and should be used as such.

Here are a collection of sources backing the above position (including an e-mail I sent to a physicist):

"All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, free falling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to show (after ~9 years of work) that gravity is indeed a fictitious force; the apparent acceleration is actually inertial motion in curved spacetime. This is the essential physics of Einstein's theory of general relativity." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

"Is Gravity A Fictitious Force?

...

The strange and in some ways disturbing answer to this supposition is that the phenomenon of gravity (the fact that things fall, and have weight) is real, but the force of gravity, as described by Newton, is not a real force, but a fictitious force[/b].[/size]"
- http://cseligman.com/text/physics/fictitious.htm

"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force)." - http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=ABE57453-E7F2-99DF-32538FF7C7B37F20

"You have it essentially right

[email protected] wrote:
> user_email -- [email protected]
> question -- I was just looking for some clarification of a few things in regards to gravitation.
>
> GR basically showcases that gravity as a force doesn't exist, correct?
>
> Now, as I understand it, gravity only needs to exist as a force in Euclidean spacetime, and since GR states that spacetime is non-Euclidean, what we feel on Earth is therefore gravitation, and not gravity?
>
>
>
>   

--
******************************************
F. Todd Baker
225 Henderson Ave.
Athens, GA 30602

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 706-546-xxxx
Cell: 706-714-xxxx
Web: http://www.ftoddbaker.com/
******************************************"

"This is analogous to what mass does to the structure of space-time. It causes a depression to form so that if an object  rolls toward it, it falls into the pit and is captured. (This, by the way, is how Einstein envisioned how gravity works. Mass distorts the space-time causing particles to roll toward the mass. Note that the objects follow the shape of the space-time and in this sense are following an unforced motion! That is, there is no gravitational force, objects are simply following their natural motions.)" - http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/lecture-2/gw.html

One of the defining features of general relativity is the idea that gravitational 'force' is replaced by geometry. In general relativity, phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories) are taken in general relativity to represent inertial motion in a curved spacetime. So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing.[/b]

An apparent exception would seem to be the force of gravity, which is also proportional to the mass upon which it acts. Although gravity can be considered a "real" physical force for the purposes of calculations in classical mechanics, Albert Einstein showed in his theory of general relativity that gravity itself can also be considered a fictitious force. In his theory, the free-falling reference frame is equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). By contrast, Einstein noted that observers standing on the Earth are experiencing an unrecognized acceleration from the normal force pushing up on their feet and, thus, are in a non-inertial (accelerated) reference frame. Further details may be found under general relativity.

this is by far the most retarded thing I have ever read. have you ever heard of physics? it's a well documented phenomenon with heaps of scientific fact to support it, and when I say phenomenon, that's really just to FE'ers, the rest of humanity 'gets' it ok, but feel free to ignore it, hearing only what you want to hear, and knowing only what you've heard seems to be the forum mantra

51

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 12:02:54 PM »

erm, yes it was, it was initiated as a graphic novel in 1936, then a whole heap of novels were released, I know, I have them, have a look here;



http://tinyurl.com/637c62m

secondly, where did I state mainstream science was settled? and what does that mean, or imply?

so if your seemingly loose grasp of facts on such a basic principle as this are so easily proven to be fallacy, how can you propose any sort of theory that is diametrically opposed to proven scientific facts and expect to be taken seriously?

52

Flat Earth General / Re: Waco may not be as crazy as folks think

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:45:14 AM »

and how will id do, or ever have done that given it's a ball of rock, and the sun is a million mile wide nuclear reaction?

53

Flat Earth General / Re: Reason for a conspiracy

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:43:11 AM »

From http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Motive+of+the+Conspiracy -

The motive for 'The Conspiracy' is unknown (unlike the existence of 'The Conspiracy', no specific motive necessarily follows from the FET) and as such it is open to speculation. However, financial profit is the most commonly assumed motive.

'Profit'

Usually considered to be the most likely motive, this suggests that NASA is primarily an embezzlement front. The conspiracy spends millions of dollars in bribing astronauts, faking photographs, and other ways of faking space exploration, but NASA's budget is in the billions, so the conspirators still receive a large profit yearly.

'Not hiding anything at all'

It is also possible that NASA does not actually know that the earth is flat and since its inception has simply been faking the concept of space travel, never bothering (or unable) to go any farther than the edge of the atmosphere. The earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because the general public already believes that it is round.

NASA is mistaken about the earth's shape, just like many others are, and reflect that mistake when putting together its fake space missions.

'Military dominance'

The US Government and its European allies have a large interest in investing untold millions of dollars into hoaxing space travel because it gives a superior image to the rest of the world. Once a country has the technology to reach orbit it can also scare off aggressors and send ICBMs raining down on its enemies at the push of a button. Creating the illusion of space travel is critical to national security of a first-world nation, whether it is actually possible or not.

I'm confused as feck now; you say the government isn't behind the conspiracy, yet claim military superiority as a reason for the conspiracy in the first place? so have NASA gotten their hands on a shit load of military hardware, enough to take on the world, without anyone noticing? and why hasn't the body behind the conspiracy acted upon it and dominated the world, y'know, like taken advantage of the bloody enormous advantage they have set up, ie, information is power, and they control every last bit of information on the planet in order to keep this charade going, yet do nothing with it. lol.

empty fe theory is empty

54

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:31:56 AM »

erm, gravity is what it needs to resist, y'know, that universally force that all objects with mass are affected by, and have, like, say, planets & stars etc, ever notice the nice round ball like shape they assume? that's the shape of least resistance.

there is no air in space by the way, hope that helps

Except gravity is not actually a force. Quite simply it isn't real. And this isn't just some loony idea either, many mainstream physicists feel the same way.

there is not one mainstream, nor respected physicist who feels the same, not one, nada, zero, none, and I challenge you to present one that you haven't pulled out of a Flash Gordon novel. I actually lol'd at the quite simply it isn't real part

55

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:27:43 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?

56

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:21:10 AM »

so did they travel from one continent to another when all the land masses where locked as one called Pangaea, or swim the oceans like big scaly reptilian mice?

57

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

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:19:01 AM »

why do I have to prove I was on the plane when I was there and know it to be a fact, I saw the curve with my own eyes? and don't be deluded FE theory is the only one that rests so heavily on 'theory', the rest of the scientific community have got plenty of 'facts' to show you.

and I like how you dodged any actual answer, which isn't surprising since you could only use scientifically proven facts in the reply, something that FE'ers seem to be in very short supply off...I wonder why

another one though; explain how ships appear to rise up out of the ocean as they get closer?

and one more; why can't I see any further than 6 miles in any direction from sea level? surely a flat earth would have boundless panoramic vistas on which to feast our eyes and dispel any doubts? instead it behaves like a round object, funny than, eh?

58

Flat Earth General / Re: The Sun

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:13:50 AM »

and as our perspective changes in relation to the suns movement, it would distort into an eclipse shape, so please explain this to me FE'ers

59

Flat Earth General / Re: WARNING: Stay Inside Tonight. (3-19-11)

« on: May 03, 2011, 11:04:37 AM »

I'm sorry that we've not given more time to prepare, but if you have plans this Saturday night I suggest you cancel them.  The moon will be the biggest and brightest its been in twenty years.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/18/nasa.moon/index.html

To avoid the harmful moon rays (rays of light from the moon, not moon manta rays), I recommend complete avoidance of the lunar phenomenon.  If you have a bomb shelter, take refuge there with plenty of fresh supplies and a portable radio.  I predict an increased chance of riots that could descend into total anarchy.  Lets hope it does not come to that.  Godspeed everyone.  If you take the proper precautions then you should be safe.

so, given that absolutely nothing at all happened, no riots & certainly no anarchy, and since life has lived and propagated on earth for billions of years, don't you feel a bit stupid spouting about bomb shelters to hide from moon rays, or are you seriously that messed up inside?

60

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light

« on: May 03, 2011, 10:58:26 AM »

Bent light has been disproved.

Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?

can you display, without referencing Star Trek, any actual scientific FACTS to support your lunacy? I bet you can't, or you'll suggest I read some other mad rant by a slightly questionable 'scientist'..